#115 - Gangster Story

Since I didn't really remember any of the details about this movie I went on imdb.com to refresh my memory. Here's whats funny about that: the picture that shows up on the page for this movie is completely wrong. It has a color picture of Walter Matthau, and he's sporting a sweet 70's/80's era 'stache. Well guess what, this movie was made in the 60's, sans 'stache, and it's in BLACK AND WHITE. I don't know where they got that picture, but they must have thrown it on some DVD or VHS cover somewhere trying to sell some copies. All this boils down to yet another sign that you are watching a crap movie. If the picture used on the packaging of the movie to try and sell the movie is NOT from the movie for sale, the movie probably sucks ass. In this case, it does.

This movie was Matthau's first foray into directing. It was also his last. Now I don't wanna pile on good ol' Walt cause he's a good guy. I mean, how could you not like Walter Matthau? But this movie just isn't that good. I think it was made before he was a well known star, so I guess it doesn't count against his overall score. You see, it's just dull. No real soundtrack that I can remember. A bunch of static shots. A lot of flat dialogue. And here's the thing, the plot is actually a good one. As shocking as it is, you've got Matthau playing a gangster. He's on the run from the law and hides out in a small town. While there, he robs a bank or some small town gangsters and pisses some people off. Honestly, I don't remember too many details and had to remind myself of the ones I do have. I just remember a dull, plodding movie that could have had more suspense.

Here's the good news: this is last movie in the Classic Ganster Movies set. That means I don't have to try and remember details about an old movie rating anywhere from average to bad that I watched over a year ago. I get to do it with other crappy movies. Trust me, there are some crappy ones coming up. I don't have any bad news, I just didn't have a better way to start off this train of thought. Hell, I'm trying to figure out to end this thing with a clean break. I mean, I didn't say much about a movie I don't remember that well. That has to be fascinating to read. Just wait, there's more where that came from.

#114 - Gangs, Inc.

Hello boys and girls!! Didja miss me? It's only been...oh, let's see...A YEAR since my last review. Why so long? Well, I moved to a new place just before summer and then soon after I got a new job that has me on the road a lot. I know what you're saying. Why don't I do it while I am on the road and stuck in a hotel in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. I don't have a good answer for that. Now, I have kept watching movies on my blockbuster.com list, but not as frequently as I did before. Again, I have no reason to not bring them on the road with me, I just don't. Every time I have brought them they haven't seen the light of day. But for every time that has happened, there has been a dozen more times where I was in my hotel room with nothing but shite on the TV and wishing I had the damn DVD's with me. Oh well, it is what it is. Having said all that, I am now going to attempt to write reviews for movies that in some cases I watched over a year ago. If that isn't retarded, I don't know what is. Some of these movies really sucked. I may not be able to thoroughly state why they sucked, but at some point I hope to catch up. Its gonna be up to imdb to help me out in some cases.

Without further ado, we have Gangs, Inc. This is the second movie in a set of three that goes by the name Classic Gangster Movies. I know it's been a while, but what do we remember about these cheapie movie sets? That's right, the adjectives in the title are usually the opposite of what they describe. These are not classics. They couldn't even be mistaken for classics. Now, that doesn't mean they are bad, just not classics. I will say that this movie was at least interesting. What happens is that the leading lady is an innocent girl who has to go to jail. I don't remember why, I just know that she didn't do it. While in jail, she becomes a tough ol' broad, and when she gets out, she's a criminal and she wants revenge. Not bad. I found myself wondering why this sort of story hasn't been redone by Hollywood more often. Maybe it has. I'm just not aware of it. They probably put them into sucky movies so no one knows about them.

I wanna mention the actors real quick. As I was watching I couldn't help but think I had seen the leading lady before. I didn't know who she was, but she looked familiar. Turns out she was in a movie I had seen just five movies earlier, King of the Zombies. That tells you how bad that movie was. And she is really good in Gangs, Inc. She plays a hard case dame really well. Very entertaining. Think of it like this: Catherine Zeta Jones was in The Phantom. I know. I don't remember either. That movie sucked so bad that you don't even remember some of the people in it. You think of her in Zorro first. Well, take that example, but instead of a two year gap, it's only five viewed movies. Thats ridiculous. Here's another thing: Alan Ladd was in this movie. Yeah, it says it on the cover, and yeah, he's on the cover, but he's barely in the damn movie. It's a classic case of a movie made by someone before they become a star, so they put that star on the cover to try and get people to buy or watch it. It's false advertising. Sure, it is technically an Alan Ladd movie, but come on people!! And another thing: if an actor uses a different name for a movie than he normally goes by, you have to use the better name. The big guy in the picture is Jack La Rue. Apparently he has made some movies and is well known in some circles. But in the opening credits for this movie he goes by the name Lash La Rue. Hello!! That name is freaking awesome. By no means should they have him go by his actual name. COME ON!! Lash La Rue? Are you kidding me? I love it.

So, that's my first review in a year. I don't know how frequent these will be from this point on, but I'll do what I can. Hopefully they don't suck. I will let you know that the randomness of the selections get even crazier than you may remember. There was a lot of movies not readily available at the top of the queue, so things were sent in a less than orderly fashion. It at least makes it interesting.

#113 - Ma Barker's Killer Brood

As the schizophrenia continues, we get another selection that has three movies on one DVD. This time around, the set goes by the title, Classic Gangster Movies. If there is anything I have learned while doing this, it is that the adjectives used to describe these kinds of movie collections are usually the exact opposite of what the movies should be described as. In this case, the only thing that makes them classic is that they are old. I suppose that the type of movie is classic, as well as how they made it, but in my mind, classic means that it is memorable and can stand the test of time. I'm assuming that none of you, except maybe one, have heard of this movie. And thats a big maybe. Therefore, this movie is no classic. It's not even a cult classic. It's just another old movie that is being put onto a DVD without the decency of digital remastering. Nothing as bad as Spooks Run Wild, but is it too much to ask to put forth some sort of an effort to make the movie look and sound better? Enough is too much!! You have the technology. We all know it works. We have all seen the results. I'm begging you DVD makers to use it.

But that's not why you came here today. You wanna know all there is to know about this movie. Well, I'll give you some info. It's about an hour long, black and white, has mom with a killer brood. Actually, it appears that in the midst of all these classic(there's that word again) gangsters, there was a team made up of a mother and her children. I would say that this is her story, but I get the feeling that the entire thing is a completely fictitious. I have no historical evidence to back that up, but it just seems to be the case. I'm sure the two Dillinger movies had plenty of fictitious moments, but they seemed to have a few more moments, such as his death, that were based on fact. This doesn't seem to be the case with this one.

Now that we have established that this is a movie filled with made up stuff in it(who knew?), let's actually talk about the movie itself. It's not too bad. It's not good, but we finally have another bad movie that has enough elements in it to make it fun. The best is Ma Barker herself. The movie is really all about her and the way she runs the show. If you believe this story, she was more of a badass and more coniving than Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly, and all those guys combined. And let me tell you, the name Barker was never more deserving than for this character. It's ridiculous and over the top, but seeing her literally bark out orders to everyone in her nasty cold blooded style is pretty amusing, and at some times quite humorous. It takes a while for the movie to get going, which is hard when it's only an hour, but once the boys grow up to be men, it gets to be more like the gangster type movie it should be. I can't say that it's worth a recommendation, but it wasn't too bad.

#112 - Cyrano de Bergerac

Knowing that this movie was coming up, I intentionally kept my review of Jose Ferrer's Cyrano brief. I knew I was going to be writing this review next, and I knew that I couldn't write about this Cyrano without referring to the other one. It wouldn't make any sense to not do a comparison of the two, and what's nice about it is that I get two compare two movies that are producing the same story. With the Dillinger movies, I had two different kinds of movies that only shared a main character. It wasn't like they were both going off of the same material. But in this case, both movies are derived from the same play. It becomes more like a comparison of how the two filmmakers presented the story. This may be obvious to some, but I felt it to be a noteworthy tidbit.

First of all, this is a French production with subtitles. While I am fine with that, I have a problem with being able to fully evaluate the acting. Don't get me wrong, I can tell if the actors are bad or not, and they are all pretty good in this one, but I can't fully analyze it like I want to. With Jose Ferrer, every single word was crafted and spoken with a purpose in mind. I can't analyze Gerard Depardieu on that level because I don't understand French. I don't know the words he is using and I can't comprehend his use of inflection or how he emphasizes certain words. I was bummed about that because I couldn't fully compre the two performances like I wanted to. I know that some of you out ther are saying that there is no comparison, but I would disagree. This version of Cyrano is a lot less theatrical in it's style, and therefore Depardieu's performance had to be created to fit in that world. I can only say that his performance was very well done, but I can't say how well he fit into his world compared to how Ferrer fit into his.

I can say that while the earlier Cyrano was all about Jose Ferrer, this version seemed to be more about how well the filmmakers adapted the play for film. And they did a great job with that adaptation. The performances were more natural and the scenes flowed in a way that was less scene by scene, and act by act. But I got the feeling that they wanted to show you more of the adaptation instead of letting happen naturally. What am I talking about? Well, in this case, I am referring to the art direction. A tremendous amount of care and detail was put into recreating the various sites and locales that were the period for Cyrano, whatever period that was. They were actually very well done, and with ALL of the wide angle shots, you could see so much of it. It seemed like every new set had it's own wide angle shot so that you could see how good they were at making an authentic period looking building interior. I only have a beef with it because it gave the film an epic scope for a story that is quite intimate. Even the scenes on the battlefield are intimate, but for some reason, I can't remeber very many wide shots for those scenes. I think there was one or two while the battle was taking place, but nothing like they had earlier in the movie. You have a budget, use it wisely. Don't try to wow me with pretty pictures for a story that stands up on its own.

What it all comes down to is that I woul like a mix of both movies. Personally, I like my movies to be movies, and my theatre to be theatre. I am not the biggest fan of plays on film. Adapt the screenplay to fit the medium, or stage it in a less theatrical way. Of course, if the Ferrer version was done that way, his performance would not have been the same, and I loved his performance. Give me the intimacy of the earlier one, with the natural style of the new one. Give me the english language. I only half mean that. I have no problems with subtitles. If had to make a choice, I would go with Ferrer's Cyrano, but Depardieu's version has it's merit. Both are good movies.

#111 - Cyrano de Bergerac

There is a part of me that looks forward to watching some of the older Oscar winning movies. It kind of has to do with the same idea behind me no sequels first rule. I like to see what came before so that I have a better understanding or point of reference of where other movies come from. But there's something particular about the Oscar winners that I like. I think it's because they are supposed to the best, and therefore, my mind puts them down as "the" point of reference for everything else. I don't always agree with what I see, as in The Great Ziegfeld, but at least I have that perspective. I will admit that I get more geeked up for the pop culture type of movies, but I watch those for different reasons. I have another set of standards for them, and expect different results. It's the way it should be. You can't watch an art house movie through the same glasses as a summer blockbuster, and vice versa. It does a disservice to both.

Needless to say, mostly because the picture says so, this is one of those older Oscar winners. And I bet you can guess what award it won, and who won it. That's right, Jose Oscar Ferrer. What? Oscar isn't his middle name? Oh...right. Anyways, this guy is good. Without taking the time to see who else was nominated, it's easy to see why he won. It is amazing to see how in control of his character and the material he is. Every move, inflection, gesture, and glance is carefully planned out, and there are no wasted movements. Everything he does serves the ultimate purpose of the character and the script. I was unbelievably captivated by his abilities.

The movie itself was well done, especially if you like theatre. It was essentially a play shot for the big screen. One set per scene. Scenes broken up into different acts. Not a whole lot of adaptation done in the way of the script, but they did make a good effort to vary up the camera angles in the scenes. It helped make that aspect of the movie more interesting, which I think is important for a style choice that doesn't always lend itself to great cinema. That, or they really wanted to give you every possible look at the nose, which I think has nostril size inconsistencies through the movie. All I'm saying is that at some times it looked like one nostril was bigger than the other, and at other times it looked like they were the same. This is not a critcism because I dont wan't to be a film continuity geek. Just something I may have noticed. It's not confirmed. I could be totally wrong.

#110 - Spooks Run Wild

Take everything that was bad about King of the Zombies, amplify them, and then add even more things that are unbelievably difficult to sit through, and you have Spooks Run Wild. Seriously, this movie wasn't even good in a nostalgic sort of way. It wasn't even good in an "it's so bad it's good" sort of way. The fact that it's a Bela Lugosi movie other than Dracula, which is the only movie of his I have seen, doesn't even keep this one from drowning into the depths of despair. The thing was only an hour, and it was too hard to sit through. In fact, the disc was damaged, and I couldn't even see the last chapter of the movie. Normally, whenever that has been the case, I have them resend the movie and I don't write anything about it until I have watched it all. With this one, I refuse. I won't do it. You can leave your comments that tell me how that breaks my rules about seeing a whole movie from beginning to end, but I don't care. I'm never intentionally letting this movie into my place of residence again. And just for the record, it is the second movie on the Ghostly Grins DVD. For those with short memories, I won't be watching the last movie on the disc because it is a sequel, but I am getting that movie and it's predeccesor whenever blockbuster.com decides to send it to me.

You wanna know what really sucked about the movie? It's called The East Side Kids. Six kids, who are apparently hooligans, as well as from being from some sort of an east side, are the main characters of the move. It seems that they are also intended to be the humor of this movie. The problem with all of this is that at best, they only occasionally display some sort of humor-like substance. The rest of the time is spent with humorless tedium. They try too damn hard to sound like the humor of the day. I say, leave it to the proffessionals. It's why they are legends, and you ended up sweeping floors in some warehouse in a forgotten back lot for a shut down studio. I'm not a fan. Can you tell?

You wanna know what REALLY sucked about the movie? The picture quality. If I wanted to watch a worn out VHS tape, I would have checked out one of my own. If I wanted to watch a worn out VHS tape via digital technology, I would have transfered one of my own to DVD. Is it too much to ask that if you take the time and effort to put a movie on a DVD, you actually take the time and effort to make the damn thing viewable. It looked and sounded like a poorly transfered videotape. The contrast was so bad, that some dark scenes were IMPOSSIBLE to see. And it's a monster movie, so there are a shitload of dark scenes. And I know that some older movies have the occasional case of choppy editing. I have learned to accept it since it's usually quite rare or infrequent, except for this one. Some scenes have three or four "jumps" all on one camera angle. Ridiculous.

How is it that people can cram so much bad into one hour? I know they do it on TV all the time, but movies are a different beast. They serve a completely different purpose. These days, they'll a least stretch out the crap they put onto the big screen to at least an hour and a half. You would think that with only one hour to work with, you would try to use your time wisely, but they don't. They wasted every single second. If I could see the movie better, or at least the whole thing, I don't think it would make on bit of difference. This movie was dreadful.

#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.