The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas

Growing up, I was a huge Looney Tunes fan. I still am to be fair. One cartoon short that always cracked me up was The Abominable Snow Rabbit where Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck -- on vacation -- actually run into the abominable snowman (appropriately named Hugo). Then there's the lovable bad guy the abominable snowman from the Christmas special Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer. How about a slightly darker version? Let's go with 1957's The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas.

Working with his wife and his assistant, Dr. John Rollason (Peter Cushing) is high up in the Himalayas at a remote monastery on a botanical/nature expedition. He's making all sorts of discoveries when news reaches the monastery that a second expedition is on the way to their location. It is a small group headed by Tom Friend (Forrest Tucker), and their intentions are completely different from those of Rollason. Their goal is to track down and hopefully find evidence of the existence of the legendary Yeti. Both his wife and his assistant don't want to him be a part of the search high up in the mountains, but with Friend boasting evidence and sightings on his side, Rollason is hard-pressed to pass up the opportunity to be a part of something so big. He agrees to join the expedition, joining with Friend and three other men as they head up into the Himalayas. What awaits them?

I don't always like horror films, but when I do, they're often from Hammer Films Productions. A British production company, 'Hammer' turned into one of the best backers of generally low-budget but well-done horror flicks in the 1950s and into the 1960s and 1970s. This 1957 entry from director Val Guest has popped up recently on TV a lot recently so I thought I'd check it out. It's actually based off a stage play, a setting that ends up working quite well in the film. Though mountain footage was actually shot, the scenes with the cast actually on-screen was shot on claustrophobic, rocky, snow-covered sets. It is small scale, small cast and never seems affected in the least by any budget limitations.

Working off a script by Nigel Kneale and an uncredited Guest, 'Snowman' borrows from the Jaws school of how to show or not show your movie monster. Translation? The appearance of the Abominable Snowman is kept hidden for the most part as we see an immense footprint, a shadow, a distant roar, and in his first appearance, his giant hand. That certainly helps build the tension and mystery as we start to see the creature as some sort of ethereal being hovering over the action. Unfortunately, we never actually see the creature fully in frame. The closest we get is a close-up on the creature's eyes late in the movie in a key scene that does deliver quite a twist in the final act. It's good and bad in that sense. There's some great tension but if it never gets a payoff then is it worth it? The beauty of Jaws is that we don't see the great white shark a lot...and then WE DO! That's probably the biggest indictment of the smaller budget, a lack of a payoff with the Yeti.

Who else to look for? Cushing and Tucker were the names that caught my eye originally. An instantly recognizable face in the horror and sci-fi genre (and frequent Hammer star), Cushing is the intellectual, the driven scientist trying to find something previously believed to be a myth, a legend. The possibilities are just too much for him to pass up. Tucker is his opposite, a showman, a businessman looking to make some serious cash by capturing the Yeti and bringing him back to civilization in a nod to King Kong. The other members of the Yeti expedition include Shelley (Robert Brown), the greedy trapper, McNee (Michael Brill), a photographer who's seen the Yeti before, and Kusang (Wolfe Morris), the superstitious local guide. Maureen Connell plays Rollason's worrying wife, Helen, while Richard Wattis plays Fox, Rollason's bookish assistant.

If there's an accurate description of this Hammer horror flick, it's moody, subtle and unsettling...but it's not always in a good way. I think it is a little too subtle. It never quite builds to anything too satisfying. The story becomes less about the Yeti, the abominable snowman, and more about how the expedition begins to fall apart and disintegrate. The Yeti is just what sets the match off to the explosion amongst the men traveling up through the mountains to find something dark and mysterious. It's good and potentially very good but never quite jells how you want it to. For me at least.

The Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas (1957): ** 1/2 /****

The Fall of the House of Usher

How about some unlikely pairings for today's review? Director/producer extraordinaire Roger Corman is the master of the B-movie across countless genres. What author/writer do you think he used as sources for eight of his movies? It's a name I would have never thought of if you gave me a week to think about it. That writer? A mildly well-known 19th century writer by the name of Edgar Allan Poe. His short story was the inspiration for 1960's The Fall of the House of Usher.

Riding out to a worn-down mansion on desolate land in New England, Philip Winthrop (Mark Damon) is trying to find his fiance. When he arrives at the mansion, Winthrop is met by his fiance's menacing older brother, Roderick Usher (Vincent Price), who insists that Philip should just ride away and forget anything and everything about his fiance. He is dumbfounded at the thought and especially confused at Roderick's continuing insistence that he leave and have nothing to do with his younger sister, Madeline (Myrna Fahey), who similarly hasn't told Philip anything about her background or what Roderick is trying to hide. After almost non-stop badgering to find out exactly what's going on, Philip finally gets the truth. The house of Usher is cursed, and it's only a matter of time before Madeline finally cracks.

I read my fair share of Edgar Allan Poe in high school in English classes, but this short story -- originally published in 1939 -- was not one of them. 'Usher' comes from American International Pictures which had previously been known for cheap, black and white flicks made for double-bills and drive-in theaters. Not anymore with some money pumped into things courtesy of change of pace movies like this. I watched it on the MGM HD channel, and my goodness, it was a good-looking movie. Filmed completely on an indoor set with a small cast, 'Usher' is a small-scale, impending doom type of story. It's all about mood and that building sense of the twist to come. So...

Yeah, it never really clicks, not for me at least. I was expecting more from a Corman film working off a screenplay from Richard Matheson with Vincent Price in the lead. It's a short movie at just 79 minutes long (some versions are slightly longer), but it feels much, much longer. Not having read Poe's short story, I can't criticize what did or didn't make the jump but for all the mood and tension building, 'Usher' is surprisingly dull. How many times can Damon's Philip ask the same questions without getting any real answers about the supposedly cursed Usher family? Maybe I was expecting a bigger, better twist when it is revealed, but nearing the hour-mark I had pretty much checked out. Winthrop arrives at the house, talks to Roderick, hangs out, has some mysterious conversations about the Usher family and its background and just persistently sticks around. Meh, I'll pass as it never really comes together.

So there is some recognizable names here with a cast that totals just four speaking parts. Vincent Price is one of the masters of the horror genre and is always a welcome addition to a cast. Here, his Roderick Usher -- rocking a platinum blonde haircut -- is far from his best work. He chews the scenery like his paycheck depended on it as his different ailments wear him down from his sensitive hearing and sense of smell to his intense dislike of being touched. It's an oddball part for sure, one I didn't quite know what to make of. A rising star who never quite became a star, Damon is more on edge here in an uncomfortable, awkward part. Maybe because we're dropped into the story with no real background, but his love for Madeline seems a little much, especially when Roderick starts spouting off about the Usher curse and all that fun stuff. You know, if curses on your wife bother you.

As the seemingly cursed Madeline, Fahey is all right but underused as a key character who just isn't on-screen enough to leave much of an impression. And because every possibly haunted mansion in the country needs a doorman and butler, Harry Ellerbe plays Bristol, the oft-maligned houseman for the Usher home, always looking worried and always trying Philip to bail.

It isn't the big twist or revelation that works in the final act here in 'Usher.' It's more of a surprise that Price's Roderick has for Philip. The reveal of that surprise does work, but it gets lost late as some supernatural family hijinks take over. A disappointment overall. I'm not a huge horror fan, but this one sure sounded like it had some potential only to fall short in the end.

The Fall of the House of Usher (1960): * 1/2 /****

The Fury

As I've brought up in several reviews before, I'm not a huge horror fan. Basically, I don't like being scared. Yeah, yeah, laugh at the scaredy cat! I usually need something to pull me into a horror movie, like an especially unique premise or as the case with 1978's The Fury, some cool casting you might not associate with the genre.

A former CIA agent, Peter Sandza (Kirk Douglas) is in the Middle East with his son, Robin (Andrew Stevens), getting ready to move back to the U.S. so Robin can go to college in the states. Well, that's the plan. Robin is kidnapped by a secret government agency with Pete's old friend and colleague, Ben Childress (John Cassavetes), leading the effort. What's behind the kidnapping? Robin seems to have some hidden powers and abilities; telekinetic powers that he doesn't have a full grasp of. Childress and the agency try to kill Peter, but he manages to escape. Now he's hiding out and trying to find out what happened to Robin and where he's been dragged off to. The key may be a high school student in Chicago, Gillian (Amy Irving), who has similar abilities to Robin and is slowly learning how to handle and manipulate them. If only all the pieces can fit together.

This isn't an out-and-out horror movie to be fair. From director Brian De Palma, 'Fury' is more of a supernatural horror flick. De Palma was coming off the mega-success of 1976's Carrie and takes the next natural step. It's not just about telekinetic creepy kids, but the government's involvement with said kids! Yeah! Reading about the story and the cast, I was psyched to give this one a shot, but in the end, I felt like the premise ends up being far better than the finished product. It's a long movie at 118 minutes and struggles with pacing and rhythm. At times, it's over the top to the point I thought it was kinda spoof-like. An uneven final product, lots of characters, some potential, but ultimately one quasi-horror flick that I won't be revisiting anytime soon.

The biggest pull 'Fury' had on me was the casting, a pairing of Kirk Douglas and John Cassavetes. Douglas was in a lull in his career, the late 1970s and 1980s providing some real stinkers for the Hollywood legend. It's a cool part, if an underwritten one, as Douglas' Pete has all sorts of espionage experience that he tries to utilize to get back his son. At 62 years old here, Douglas isn't the prototypical action hero, but he more than holds his own in the chase scenes early in the movie. I grew up watching Cassavetes in The Dirty Dozen and little else so it's always cool seeing him pop up in a cast listing. He's calm, cool and impeccably sinister as Childress, head agent on this mission to acquire all sorts of telekinetic kids. Like so much else, I wish there was more backstory with Childress and this secret agency. What's the end game? What will these kids be used for? How much backing do they actually have or is this a bit of a roguish renegade? 

I thought then I was getting one movie from the plot synopsis and ended up getting another. 'Fury' isn't just a movie about old friends turned deadly rivals. It's two stories, the Douglas/Cassavetes story moving along with a separate angle of young Gillian exploring her own powers (however scary and violent they may be). Irving does a really good job as a teenager struggling to come to terms with it all, Carrie Snodgress, Charles Durning, Fiona Lewis, and Carol Eve Rossen playing assorted doctors, physicians and assistants associated with the Paragon Institute, an organization "working" with talented kids. This felt like it could (and should) have been its own movie but no such luck. We get the two different stories that will eventually cross paths in the third act, but the pacing is rough getting there and there were several points I considered completely bailing. Things get a little goofy and a tad bit stupid in the finale with an especially graphic final scene. Some shock value from the director of Carrie? Who would have thought of that?

Now, yes, not a horror fan, but I am a sucker for certain things. High on that list? Any movie filmed in Chicago or even remotely close to the city. 'Fury' films a lot in and around Chicago, including some familiar locations for any fans of 1980's The Blues Brothers. We see everything from Lincoln Park to North Avenue Beach, Water Tower Place to Lower Wacker Drive, even the Old Chicago Shopping Mall and Amusement Park. If the story is a little dull at times, the filming locations in the background certainly help inject some life into things.

A mixed bag, but one I can't really recommend. And that's considering Spartacus, Franco and Chicago play key parts in it!

The Fury (1978): **/****

Omen III: The Final Conflict

Well, evil has grown up. After reviewing the Omen remake from 2006 and the first sequel from the original, it's time to wrap things up with one last review. The original Omen movies were a trilogy and one failed TV movie. I watched part of this one years ago, especially remembering the finale, so here we go with 1981's Omen III: The Final Conflict.

The world has fallen into a costly recession, one that has some calling the current international crisis the 'end of days.' People are looking for answers, for a solution. Waiting to give them that answer and leadership is the C.E.O. of an aid company, a huge corporation with footholds all over the world, one Damien Thorn (Sam Neill), now 32 years old and fully embracing his Satanic makeup. When a grisly suicide leaves the position open, Damien is appointed the U.S. ambassador to England, the same position his father held years before. He has plans for his power position but he has fears, signs pointing to the Second Coming of Christ, that could cripple his plans. The timing is essential for those battling on both sides, both good and bad, as a small order of monks from Italy know Damien's true identity and are doing everything in their power to stop him. Who or what will prevail in the end? Good or evil?

Of the trilogy, only the first one is an above average horror flick to the point I'd say it is a classic. Where do the second and third ones fall? They're pretty good...just not as good. From director Graham Baker, 'Final' wraps things up in pretty cool fashion. It switches up the formula some and doesn't depend on gruesome deaths like Omen II did (even though I enjoyed that flick a lot). Again, these aren't the most plot-driven flicks, but I didn't get caught up in that stuff. It's all building, all developing a character, and this time we get a showdown in the finale between good and evil. 'Final' isn't as good as either of its predecessors, but I still enjoyed it a lot. It wraps things up nicely and even left an opening for the series to continue that never developed. 

If you believe Wikipedia and its countless information -- and I tend to -- the casting for 32-year old Damien was pretty interesting. How about Jack Nicholson? Gene Hackman? Even Marlon Brando? All three were considered for the part before producers decided to go with a lesser known actor. Enter Sam Neill, 34 years old at the time. This is the natural progression for Damien. Having realized who he truly is in 'Damien II,' he's now actively working toward taking what is his. He's embraced his identity. He is the Antichrist, and he intends to rule the world. We get to see his political pull in a startlingly easy encounter with the President (Mason Adams), his pull on his political staff, and in most frightening fashion, his growing number of apostles and disciples. As I've mentioned before, evil...true, pure evil, can be scarier than any serial killer, murder mystery.

And that's an interesting angle of this sequel. Now, I'm not religious much, but this story fascinated me. Again, it's that BIG concept of good and evil. Add in the Antichrist, the believed Second Coming of Christ, and we've got some interesting stuff going on. Neill's Damien gets to chew the scenery several times as he addresses an immense crucifix (Jesus nailed to the cross backwards) about how he will ultimately defeat him. He calls him the Nazarene as if they were on a first-name basis, his cold, icy and calculating stare -- and what looks like some guy-liner -- adding that sinister edge to the story. This isn't a James Bond villain trying to conquer the world. This is the Prince of Darkness, the Devil, Satan himself. Not too many bigger stakes than that. Oh, and those dagger-wielding monks led by Father DeCarlo (Rossano Brazzi)? Nice touch, another enemy for Damien to deal with, even if they are sort of a bumbling bunch.

The cast is pretty small here for this horror sequel. Along with Neill, look for Don Gordon as Harvey Dean, Damien's personal assistant, fully aware of what his boss is and what he aspires to do in the old evil department. Lisa Harrow plays Kate Reynolds, a respected TV journalist trying to get down to the truth of Damien's background, Barnaby Holm playing her son, Peter, possibly a disciple for Damien.

There's some pretty cool moments along the way. I loved the credits sequence as we discover how the daggers that were supposedly lost in Damien II are discovered and end up where they need to be. The monks' attempts on Damien are tense, and Damien's ultimate plan to stop the second coming is particularly gruesome and more than a little unsettling. And then there's the ending, a great final scene that brings everything full circle. Yeah, there's some giant plot holes, but I liked the execution from beginning to end.

Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981): ***/****

Damien: Omen II

So I love the original The Omen. Everybody cool with that? Yeah, I'm not a horror fan, but there's a sick, disturbing appeal -- for me at least -- for movies dealing with Satan, pure evil, and in this case, the Antichrist. A big success in 1976, The Omen spawned two sequels, a TV movie, and a remake that I just reviewed recently. I've seen the sequels, but it's been years so thanks to an AMC mini-marathon, here we are with 1978's Damien: Omen II.

It's been seven years since young Damien Thorn barely survived an attack from his father who was trying to murder the five-year old boy. Now, Damien (Jonathan Scott-Taylor) is 12 years old and living in the Chicago suburbs with his uncle, Richard (William Holden), and aunt, Ann (Lee Grant). Richard is the C.E.O. of Thorn Industries, a company on the verge of some major, lucrative developments. Damien is heading to military school with his cousin, Mark (Lucas Donat), as he heads into his teenage years. His past is his past though, and he's moved on, but now he's starting to have odd feelings, weird sensations (and it ain't puberty!). What is going on? What's behind it all? Certain people keep telling Damien that big changes are coming and that he should fully embrace it. Others are willing to risk their lives to stop him from embracing his future.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can be wishy-washy when it comes to sequels. I typically think sequels are pretty dumb...until I like them. That's the beauty of it all here. If you look at the original The Omen, it's a perfect self-contained movie. The ending is slightly open-ended, but there is a creepy resolution including that great creepy final shot. But what happens to Damien? Where does he go from there? And that's where the sequels enter, letting Damien grow up. Director Don Taylor does a solid job developing the story of Damien and letting it breathe. The jump in time forward seven years was a cool choice -- the Antichrist as a teenager, gasp!?! -- and it keeps that incredibly creepy, underplayed vibe. Even composer Jerry Goldsmith tweaks his musical score, not the same score as the original but still perfectly sinister.

This isn't necessarily a smart horror movie, but it is a really good one. Creepy kids are a fixture in the genre, and Damien (here and in the original) is near or at the top of that list. But what about a creepy kid coming of age story? As cheesy and after-school special as that sounds, that's what this movie is. What Damien did in the original flick was never purely evil. Here....yeah, he's starting to realize who he is, what he's capable of, and what he can aspire to. When that aspiration is potentially ruling the world through evil? Sorta terrifying. Scott-Taylor does an excellent job playing Damien, a charming, smart young man. He's got that icy, steely look in his eyes and it is a terrifying premise as we see what is capable in this young man, especially when certain people around him are doing their best to protect him. A solid performance, a solid and interesting character.

As for the rest of the cast, there isn't a ton of star power. William Holden is obviously the biggest name here, and he does a solid, workmanlike job as Richard Thorn, a businessman who knows at least part of his family's past but maybe not the whole thing. His chemistry with Grant is believable, and just by being here, he legitimizes the whole proceedings. Also look for Lew Ayres (in his last role), Robert Foxworth and Nicholas Pryor as Thorn co-workers, all around for different reasons. Lance Henriksen is nicely cast as Sergeant Neff, Damien's platoon leader at military school while Sylvia Sidney and Elizabeth Shepherd play two women who may know the truth about Damien's background and possible future. In a cool connection to the original Omen, Leo McKern returns in a startling open scene as Bugenhagen, an exorcist and archeologist who knows the truth, with Ian Hendry as a friend and possible believer.

I read a topic at the IMDB message board for 'Damien' that cracked me up. It complained about a lack of plot with a reliance of "Hey, Damien is evil!....Ah, I'm dead" scenes. It's actually pretty spot-on. This isn't a plot-driven movie with more of a focus on the character. Now that said, the deaths are pretty gruesome -- if not graphic -- as some sort of evil power seemingly protects Damien wherever and whenever needed. There's some memorable deaths, the scenes full of impending doom and danger with Goldsmith's score doing its thing. Also worth mentioning, 'Damien' was partially filmed on-location in Chicago with some shots on LaSalle Street and some key scenes at the Field Museum including a great surprise ending.

A very solid sequel, one I was glad I could catch up with, especially during the Halloween season. Worth checking out for sure, especially for original Omen fans and horror fans in general.

Damien: Omen II (1978): ***/****

The Omen (2006)

It's that time of the year again. Time for candy, costumes, Halloween and horror movies. I've never been a fan of horror movies -- it's easy enough to scare me -- but there are exceptions. One of my favorites is one of the creepiest, scariest flicks ever, 1976's The Omen. I love it, love all of it. But 1976 is what....like almost 40 years old, right? Let's pointlessly remake it!!! Here's 2006's The Omen.

A rising star in politics, Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) and his wife, Kate (Julia Stiles), are expecting a child but there are complications during the birth and the baby dies. A priest at the hospital tells Robert something though. A mother died giving birth the same night, but her infant son survived. With Kate having experienced some serious medical issues in getting pregnant, Robert agrees to take the child as their own...without telling Kate. Robert continues to rise through the political ranks -- even becoming the United States ambassador to England -- as their son, Damien, grows up. As the boy gets older though, Kate begins to notice a string of odd incidents plaguing the boy from a shocking death of his nanny to other extremely difficult things to explain. Robert is stunned when a panicked priest hits him with a revelation. He believes Damien is the son of the Devil, the Antichrist. There's no way it could be true, right?

So why remake the original The Omen? Well, other than the money. As near as I can find out through some Internet digging, it was for a gimmick. The 2006 Omen was released on June 6, 2006 at 6:06.06 in the morning. In other words? lots of 666, the number of the beast. Yeah, yeah, it is a cool gimmick but seriously? Making a movie so it could be released on the sixth day of the sixth month of the sixth year? Come on now. You've gotta come up with something better than that. It did okay in theaters, getting mostly negative reviews but still making $120 million at the box office. If you are going to make a remake of a classic, you should try something new. Do something different.

And that's where we sit. Director John Moore is at the lead of a horror flick that doesn't do much at all to differentiate from the 1976 original. There are a couple changes -- some nightmares for Kate, a reliance on bright, vivid colors to foreshadow impending doom -- but as a whole, this is an almost scene-for-scene remake of the original. The story is virtually identical, whole scenes of dialogue are repeated, and the biggest difference ends up being how certain characters are dispatched (in Final Destination mode). It's creepy, unsettling and legitimately scary at different points with several very good jump out of your seat moments. But...if you've seen the original, you've seen this movie. Some minor differences overall, but mostly, this is the same film.

How about some casting? Liev Schreiber is one of my favorite actors around, and he's got some big shoes to fill here playing the Gregory Peck part. He's got the best performance in this horror remake, an underplayed part focused on the extreme disbelief of the news he receives about his son. No father wants to believe his son/daughter is evil or bad, much less the Antichrist himself. Stiles doesn't come off as well, a performance that is missing something. It feels forced and overdone. Young Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is very creepy as the possibly evil Damien, his cold, icy stares putting him firmly in the 'Creepy Kids in Movies' department. Also look for David Thewlis as Jennings, a photographer who may know the truth about Damien, Mia Farrow as Miss Baylock, Damien's sinister nanny, Pete Postlethwaite as Father Brennan, a possibly unhinged priest, and Michael Gambon as Bugenhagen, an archaeologist and exorcist.

Look, as I mentioned, this isn't a bad movie. Far from it. It's professionally done, creepy, unsettling and genuinely scary. The score isn't as good, not quite as memorable as Jerry Goldsmith's original score, but the look of the movie is solid. Dark, gloomy, rainy and foreboding, it does add a dimension to the Satanic story. There was no reason to remake it though, especially if the new version is going to stick so close to its predecessor. Maybe viewers unfamiliar with the 1976 original will enjoy it more. I didn't dislike it, but it's okay at best and not much more.

The Omen (2006): **/****

Beetlejuice

So can we all agree on this next statement? Strange, odd and as downright creepy as he can be at times, Tim Burton is one talented, eccentric filmmaker. Following the success of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure in 1985, Burton was looking for a script for his next film. He struggled to find the right vehicle, ultimately settling on 1988's Beetlejuice. Though I grew up watching the Beetlejuice cartoon on Saturday mornings, I never saw the movie....until now!!!

With a two-week vacation ahead of them, husband, Adam (Alec Baldwin), and wife, Barbara (Geena Davis), have decided to sit around on the house and relax doing odds and ends. Well, that's their plan at least. Picking up some odds and ends, the couple is killed in a car crash, and now they're trapped in some sort of after-life purgatory....in their own home. Is it heaven? Is it hell? Is it neither? Adam and Barbara find a "Guide to the Recently Undead" book in their attic but don't know what to make of it. They're trapped in their house and don't know how to get out. It's a minor problem until a new family moves in, an uppity family from New York City, wanting to make lots of changes that the recently dead couple is really in trouble. Maybe their only option? A live-wire, bio-exorcist ghost named Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton), who may have some ulterior motives.

Look at the films a director makes -- the good directors at least -- and you can get a good glimpse into their beliefs, their backgrounds, their childhoods. What about Burton? He is a nut. A talented, crazy, chaotic nut with a beautifully insane outlook on life. From Pee-Wee to Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands to writing Nightmare Before Christmas, Burton isn't afraid to make movies that he likes. They're weird (sometimes gloriously weird), and he's okay with that. Watching these movies is a trip so you've gotta know that going in. Watching a Burton flick is like being transported into an alternate world with crazy visuals, crazier characters, and a dark, cynical sense of humor. Sound good? I'm not a huge, diehard fan of Burton, but I can definitely appreciate a talented director like he is.

So what's an unlikely source for some laughs? Dying, death and whatever twisted vision of the afterlife that Tim Burton has. It's wickedly colorful, always slightly ajar and off-center, and though it produces laughs, it's always played straight. At no point does it feel forced. The laughs are bizarre, but they work because Burton and the cast simply lay things out for you. Here's the joke. Laugh if you want. If you don't, no skin off my back. Case in point? When Adam and Barbara visit the afterlife offices, we meet Juno (Sylvia Sidney), their afterlife case worker who fills them in on their new situation. While smoking and explaining, smoke filters out through her throat. Was her throat slit? Did she have cancer? Just go with it. There's a whole office of stuff like that, a desk clerk who hung himself and now moves around the office by noose. The football team that died in a bus wreck. The shrunken-head victim of a witch doctor...and the dead voodoo doctor. The magician's assistant sitting next to her severed lower half. Incredibly dark but oh so funny.

Enough with all that mumbo-jumbo. Let's talk Beetlejuice! Having worked for most of the 1980s in a variety of films, this was the movie that made Michael Keaton a star, albeit a star that shined brightly but quickly. Wearing heavy makeup and some kooky outfits, Keaton throws himself completely into the part as our big-exorcist ghost looking to have some fun...a lot of fun actually. He's actually not in the movie a ton but makes the most of every minute he's on-screen. He falls for the Deetzes' daughter, Lydia (Winona Ryder), who embraces all sorts of weird, producing some great moments as he tries to escape the afterlife (sort of). It's goofy, often dumb, mostly smart, and Keaton is a scene-stealer. His character theme song is a gem too, kicking in HERE about 30 seconds in.

There isn't a weak spot in the entire cast. Baldwin and Davis get laughs because they play it straight, especially when they realize that as dead people they can do all sorts of horrifying, manipulative things to their bodies. As well, they're dead, but they're not quite Beetlejuice dead, establishing a sort of afterlife hierarchy. Catherine O'Hara and Jeffrey Jones are perfect together as Delia and Charles Deetz, the wife looking to gut the house while the husband wants to relax and live a country life...until there's money on the line. Ryder too is especially good as the quirky Lydia who can see the ghosts/dead. Glenn Shadix has some great moments too as Otho, Delia's interior decorator with a wicked sense of everything.

Just a funny movie from beginning to end. Too many good moments to mention, and what's the fun in me giving them all away? Check it out, an excellent Halloween-themed flick for October!

Beetlejuice (1988): ***/****

Day of the Animals

A few years back, October 2009 to be exact, I reviewed a dud of a movie made on a clearly pretty tight budget that rose above its cheapness to be 'So bad it's really good.' Okay, at least funny in an unintentionally way. That movie? 1976's Grizzly. It was a surprise success at drive-ins with fans to the point that a year later the stars and director returned with a similarly schlocky, generally pretty bad flick again dealing with some angry killer animals. Here we go with 1977's Day of the Animals.

In the mountains in northern California, experienced trail guide and outdoor enthusiast Steve Buckner (Christopher George) is readying to take a group of hikers on a several day hike. It's a mini-vacation offered away from society with little in the way of supplies, a way of getting back to nature. His group includes about 15 people, most of them city folks enjoying their time away from city life. But being dropped off by helicopters high up in the mountains, Buckner and his group quickly discovers something is very, very wrong. Animals are attacking them at an almost non-stop pace. What's going on? Can they survive or will the waves of animals wipe them out? They don't know it, but down below in the lower altitude towns, the population is dealing with exactly the same issue. Humanity....seems....doomed!!!!

Yikes, what a dumb, really dumb movie. Having directed Grizzly the year before (with George also starring and returning), director William Girdler is at the helm of another ultra-low budget drive-in special. It was made for cheap and intended for some cheap thrills. Can't go wrong, right? Well, you would think so. I liked the B-movie/disaster movie potential, but it never comes together. What exactly is driving the animals mad? The possibility that humans use of aerosol cans is ripping apart the ozone layer (Okay, we're doing a good job of that) and....lets radiation beat down on the Earth that turns animals into vicious, unstoppable killers. Oh, and some humans too but not all humans because that would make the story rather predictable, wouldn't it? I like my B-movies ridiculous and over the top, but don't hit me with a message!

Still, I figured there was enough going on here to make it watchable. Following the disaster movie formula, 'Animals' brings together a group of disparate individuals and lets us start guessing as to who will survive and who is just fodder for the vicious animals. No huge star power here, but definitely some familiar names. Going back to TV's The Rat Patrol, I've always been a fan of George, and he's having fun. His friendly, charming trail guide doesn't stretch any acting muscles, but it's not meant to be. Some of his hiking group include Richard Jaeckel as a bird-watching, photography-loving professor, Leslie Nielsen as an advertising executive with some anger issues, Michael Ansara as the wise Indian who knows all, and Ruth Roman has a Mom trying to bond with her nature-loving son.

That's as far as the name recognition goes, but there are some other interesting parts. Mrs. Christopher George, Lynda Day George, plays a TV newswoman trying to get away from work, Paul Mantee as an aging NFL star with a serious medical issue, and everyone else from a married couple looking to mend some wounds, a young couple in love, and Roman's son who needs a father figure. Who will make it? Who won't? Will anyone? That's part of the fun.

It cracked me up more and more as the movie went along. The premise is pretty cool, a variation on the Lost Patrol idea with a group of individuals banding together to survive, an enemy hovering all around them waiting to pick them up. Something never clicks though. The low budget most affects the actual animal attacks with some very cheesy special effects. For the most part, the sense of doom works better than anything. We see animals moving parallel to George's group, waiting to strike. Cheap filmmaking technique? Animals can look pretty scary just filming them so all Girdler had to do was film animals walk around and set those scenes to impending doom music from composer Lalo Schifrin (his score a bright spot). There are some scares along the way, but never as good as it could have been.

That's the entire movie. I wanted to like it, but it doesn't work. It's mindlessly entertaining but it's also a tad sluggish and never really picks up any momentum. Sure, it's cool to see character actors like George, Jaeckel, Nielsen and Ansara get their shot, but there's a limit. My limit? Nielsen's ad executive progressively getting hit with radiation. That translates to him taking his shirt off (All that is MAN!!!) and threatening to kill the men, rape the women and fight all the animals. By far, the funniest scenes in the movie.

Day of the Animals (1977): * 1/2 /****

World War Z

Thanks to AMC's The Walking Dead (among other things), the zombie genre has gotten an energy boost the last couple years from film to books to TV shows. I read Max Brooks' World War Z and loved it, an interesting twist on the zombie genre, most of all a smart, well-written book not interested in horror(ish) shock value. It was apparent the book just couldn't be adapted for one feature length film, making me suspicious of 2013's World War Z. Long story short? It has little to do with Brooks' novel, but it's pretty good just the same.

A former United Nations employee, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Karin (Mireille Enos), and their two daughters. Caught up in traffic driving to work, Gerry and his family are caught up in mass chaos, seemingly deranged human beings attacking other ones at will. The Lanes manage to escape the city and all its death and violence, Gerry getting a call from his former boss with the U.N., Thierry (Fana Mokoena), asking him for help. The attacks are not an isolated events, something happening across the world, thousands and maybe millions of people dying. What's going on? The word 'zombie' is beginning to pop up, the undead attacking live human hosts, the victims then turning into zombies themselves. Working with survivors among the military and government, Gerry is tasked with finding a solution; a clue, a lead, something that will help the human race survive. The world is tearing itself apart. Can Gerry survive long enough to find those desperately needed answers?

The difficult part of Brooks' novel is that it isn't a novel, but an oral history. It is a series of interviews with people who survived World War Z -- the zombie takeover -- and what they saw. We meet common people, government officials, brilliant minds working to combat the zombies, military, medical staff and everything in between. We see nothing live, simply hearing about it later. There is a subtle brilliance to its storytelling device. The trick then...how does any two-hour film somehow manage to pack all that detail on a worldwide level into such a short run-time? Basically, it doesn't. The film makes a valiant effort to do so -- Pitt's Lane globe-trotting to find a solution/cure -- but if you're looking for a literal, spot-on adaptation of Brooks' novel, you're going to be disappointed. Take solace in the fact that the movie is still really good.

What I liked about director Marc Forster's film is that it doesn't spell everything out for us in crystal clear fashion, just like the novel. We never find out exactly what caused the zombie takeover, whether it be a disease, a virus, Mother Nature rearing its ugly head. Early on, we don't see the zombies directly, just blurry motion as they race by the camera. It's only as Gerry learns what's going on that we start to see these undead attackers head-on. A doctor (Elyes Gabel) does a great job with a monologue that lays out what's going on, and maybe more scary, if there's anyway to stop it. Without explaining every little detail, we get a picture of what's going in the world as the epidemic takes over. We hear in the background that Washington DC is gone, that other cities aren't far behind. I thought that was a really smart movie. We get that big picture, but it doesn't lose the personal element we get from Gerry, his family and those he meets along the way.

As the only cast member who is in basically every scene, Pitt does a fine job carrying the movie. We learn tidbits about his past, but mostly we're in the here and now. With his past work as a respected, trusted United Nations employee on an international level, his Gerry knows how to handle himself in sticky situations. The rest of the cast is an ensemble (a nice nod/attempt to adapt the novel), the people Gerry meets in his investigation. We meet Segen (Daniella Kertesz), a young Israeli soldier, Capt. Speke (James Badge Dale), an Army officer with a small crew of surviving soldiers in Korea, Warmbrunn (Ludi Boeken), an intellectual helping Israel survive the epidemic, David Morse as an ex-CIA agent caught up in Korea, (Pierfranceso Favino), a World Health Organization doctor in Wales, and Tomas (Fabrizio Zacharee Guido), a young boy caught up in the chaos with the Lanes from Newark. Even Matthew Fox makes a blink and you'll miss it appearance as a parajumper who helps the Lanes. The variety of the people we meet does help give a touch of what Brooks' novel did so well.

The scale is pretty impressive, as it should be with a film featuring a $190 million budget. We go from Philly to Newark to following the U.S. Navy in the Bahamas to Korea, Israel and Wales. There are some pretty impressive set pieces, especially the initial takeover in Philadelphia and a surprising attack in a walled-in Jerusalem. A nighttime encounter with Speke's troops at an isolated base in Korea is the most action you'll see, small scale but unsettling and highly effective. The same goes for the finale in a half-infested W.H.O facility, Lane and several doctors trying to navigate their way through its sterile, fluorescent hallways. It's the finale that was supposedly re-shot by Forster and his crew (at quite the cost), replacing this finale with an epic zombie vs. human battle in Red Square in Moscow. I'd be curious to see that ending, but this one's pretty cool too on that smaller scale.

So there we are. I think this zombie flick is missing something from being a classic, but that didn't take away from a very entertaining, very tense movie. I really liked Brad Pitt leading the ensemble cast in a movie that does a good job balancing out the large scale with the personal. Also worth mentioning is Marco Beltrami's score (listen HERE) as well as dropping in some songs from one of my favorite musical groups, Muse, including Isolated System and Follow Me. Both provide some nice electronic touches to Beltrami's very solid score. Well worth checking out, whether you're a fan of the book or not.

World War Z (2013): ***/****

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

As different eras and time periods pass, highly successful genres in Hollywood find ways to stay fresh, changing with the new times. Almost always though, there's a common tie, some link to what originally made the genre successful with audiences. Take science fiction. It is a genre that has been aided by the invention of all sorts of new technology, especially CGI. But what's the best time period for the genre? I'll watch a sci-fi flick from any decade, any time period, but for me, the genre was at its absolute strongest in the 1950s. I caught up with one classic I'd never seen before, 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Returning to his home in Santa Mira, California, after attending a two-week convention, Dr. Miles Bennell (Kevin McCarthy) is alarmed by the amount of requests he receives from patients upon his return. Several people are complaining that their loved ones seem a little off, that the people they've known all their lives simply aren't themselves. Bennell looks into it a bit but doesn't think much of it....at first. A friend and neighbor (King Donovan) has found what he believes to be a dead body that somewhat resembles him but without any distinctive features or fingerprints to identify him. With a longtime crush and recent divorcee Becky (Dana Wynter) at his side, Bennell starts to investigate and is stunned by what he finds. Some sort of extraterrestrial race is in fact replacing human beings with almost duplicate versions of themselves, but eliminating emotion in the process. Can Bennell figure out how to stop the rapidly reproducing duplicates in time?

The 1950s were packed to the gills with everything from Forbidden Planet to The Day the Earth Stood Still, It Came From Outer Space to The Thing. As far as comparisons go, 'Invasion' is interesting because of some similarities with 1951's The Thing, but also how it impacted John Carpenter's The Thing remake. From Don Siegel, this 1956 sci-fi creeper is a gem. Based on a serial that ran in Collier's Magazine, it is smart, well-written and scary without having to resort to obvious GOTCHA! scares and thrills. Filmed in black and white, it is subtle and unsettling, Siegel using his camera in a variety of different angles, POV, and tracking shots. The shadowy black and white works well, almost like a sci-fi film noir, building that sensation of impending doom expertly. We know something isn't quite right, but what is it exactly?

An obvious influence on Siegel's film is rather timely for a 1950s audience, but now in 2013, it's easier to keep it in perspective. With McCarthyism and a Red Scare permeating the United States, Americans were worried about an ever-constant threat of Commies and Reds affecting an American way of life. What better way to translate that than in a story of a mysterious alien race that secretly and covertly tries to change who you are? The end result? An eerily similar version of what you used to be, but not quite spot-on. Now, we can look back on that secondary layer to the story and see it for what it is. I wonder if 1950s audiences picked up on it. Regardless, Siegel and the script don't overdo that angle. It is underplayed, just another subtle layer to the scares.

A really solid character actor who never quite became a huge star, McCarthy is a great lead here as Dr. Miles Bennell, a likable, smart and smooth doctor who questions things as much as anyone. But something that's hard to explain like this? How could people literally be replaced without anyone else noticing? McCarthy does a good job showing that slow burn as he figures out exactly what's going on, from a doctor who thinks things out to a man who appears unhinged when he learns the truth. Avoiding just being the pretty face along for the ride, Wynter more than holds her own as the female lead. The rest of the cast is lesser known actors, the ensemble as a whole doing a pretty cool job. Larry Gates plays a similarly questioning psychiatrist who Miles seeks out for help, Donovan and future Morticia Adams Carolyn Jones as Jack and Teddy, a couple who finds a suspicious body, Jean Willes as Miles' nurse Sally, and even future director Sam Peckinpah as Charlie, one of the townspeople affected by the quasi-alien invasion.

There really isn't a weak moment in the film, but with an 80-minute running time, things really pick up about the 35 or 40-minute mark. We start to learn what's really going on, and unlike most sci-fi movies that feature a twist, this one works. Sometimes films try so hard to really throw you for a loop that the twist comes across as laughable. Not the case here thankfully. Besides, even if you don't buy the twist/explanation, the final 30 minutes are so fast-paced you won't even notice. Siegel's camera work (including some cool tracking shots from a distance) and a race for survival provide some ridiculously tense moments. The ending is a little weak, Siegel being forced to film a prologue and epilogue (featuring uncredited Whit Bissell and Richard Deacon) that starts off well enough but ends up weakening the possible darkness of his original ending. Still a classic, still well worth tracking down.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956): ****/****

Sharknado

I knew this day would come....I just didn't know when and in what form. Well, it's here. There is a new champion at the top, that one film that can be universally dubbed as the greatest movie in the history of cinema. Not just Hollywood, not particular to one country's film industry. This is a film that covers all and more. It is..............2013's Sharknado. There will be no discussions or arguments. This is simply the best film ever.

Running a mildly successful bar on the Santa Monica Pier, former surfing champion Fin (Ian Ziering) sits back and remembers his glory days fondly. One day, it's all thrown for a loop when a horrific storm rolls up the coast, bringing it with it countless sharks of all varieties. High winds turn into a hurricane, turning the pier into a disaster area, the weather eventually pushing inland and with countless sharks to boot. Fin's concern is on one thing, saving his separated wife, April (Tara Reid), and daughter, Claudia (Aubrey Peeples). With some friends from the bar, Fin heads to April's house as the storm picks up. More and more sharks are swimming through the streets, popping out of storm drains, anywhere and everywhere. There's more though that the hurricane is hiding. In the distance, Fin is starting to see something else; immense waterspouts that seem to be lifting something...sharks. You know what that means, once they hit shore they will turn into.....SHARKNADOS!!!

Premiering last week on the SyFy channel, 'Sharknado' blew up on Twitter, producing immense amounts of buzz and attention while only gaining decent ratings. Let me tell you, you NEED to watch this movie. It is great. It is best watched with many friends and much booze. Sit back and enjoy it, and be ready with the remote because you'll be laughing so hard at times you'll have to rewind to actually re-listen to the other horrifically awful lines you missed. Let there be no doubt. This will be a one-star review, but it's supposed to be a one-star review! It's a SyFy movie so it's supposed to be a horrifically guilty pleasure with gigantic plot holes, horrific special effects and some of the most awful, wooden acting you've ever seen. It all adds up to a modern classic, one of the best worst movies I've ever seen. I'm also completely recommending it.

There's no point in analyzing this one on its so-called "technical merits." It probably cost about $148 to make, and let me tell you, it certainly reflects that. The special effects are laughable, the greenscreen work even worse, and any semblance of a script was left behind ages ago I imagine. I laughed throughout and feel confident saying I would on repeat viewings. By my count, I remember three different Jaws references, including one character, the babely Nova (Cassie Scerbo), explaining why she hates sharks so much, giving her own watered down version of Robert Shaw's classic speech. Upon hearing this story, Fin's son, Matthew (Chuck Hittinger) states "I really hate sharks now too!" Talk about an impeccably delivered line. Nova later deadpans "We're going to need a bigger helicopter!" which also caused me to wet my pants I laughed so hard. It's just a solid script.

Oh, Beverly Hills 90210, where have you gone? I'll give Ian Ziering credit. He commits here, and that's what you've got to do if you're in a movie called Sharknado. It's bad stuff so you might as well have fun with it. His Fin is our hero, a family man trying to bring his family back together. Yes, there's enough time for some after school special crap about bringing an isolated family together. Yeah, a lesson! Ziering is hamming it up but without looking like it. In a sea of dreck, he's pretty good. His crew of friends and customers include Scerbo's Nova, hating sharks while wielding a pump-action shotgun and wearing a bikini top and jeans shorts, Aussie surfer dude Baz (Jaason Simmons) who's always ready with a cheesy one-liner, and George (John Heard, the Dad from Home Alone) as a booze-hound who frequents Fin's bar and makes everything weird. At one point as he overlooks a blood-covered patch of water, Baz actually says "It must be that time of the month." Yes, that just happened. It's that prideful of a script.

Then there's Tara Reid of American Pie fame doing.....well........something. She looks confused, like she's questioning how she got here and what exactly she's doing. If you're going to be in a bad movie, just own it. Wooden doesn't begin to describe her acting style here. As sharks rain down all around her, Miss Reid looks downright bored. She narrowly beats our her film kids as the worst acting on display.

Blah blah blah, this is a review for a movie called Sharknado, or for the newbs among us, a tornado filled with sharks. Yep, that could be the stupidest, coolest thing I've ever written. How could that not be an amazing movie? These waterspouts apparently scooped up the sharks at sea and are now flinging them around Los Angeles, leaving Fin and Co. to navigate a shark-infested city. It's amazing stuff. At different points, Fin has to fight a shark, rescue a school bus full of stranded kids, rappelling down a bridge to get them, and then also unleashing a chainsaw attack on those damn, dirty sharks. Oh, sorry, wrong movie. It takes a little while to get to the Sharknados unfortunately, but once they arrive, watch out. You are in for a treat.

The best is really saved for the last here as Fin, Baz, Matthew, Nova and Co. figure out a plan of attack. That plan? Fly a helicopter into a hurricane and throw a bomb at it, reversing the tornado/hurricane's "power." I'm no science expert, but that sounds legit enough to me. It's an amazing final sequence. Do a drinking game about who will and won't survive. You'll get some surprising results. Ziering's Fin saves the best for last, using his chainsaw for one last kill and making a surprising rescue. Look, if you've made it this far, you have a sick sense of humor. This is a truly bad movie, but it's amazingly entertaining. Good for a lot of laughs so get on board with Sharknado!

Sharknado (2013): */****

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Airing for five seasons on CBS between 1959 and 1964, The Twilight Zone is one of the all-time great television shows. A mix of horror, science fiction, paranormal and all sorts of wackiness, almost all the episodes were able to deliver some shocker/twist in the end. It's been revived several times in TV reboots, and even received a big screen adaptation, the much-maligned 1983 Twilight Zone: The Movie, a film shrouded in controversy even before its release.

The story is broken down into four separate segments, including a prologue. The first segment follows Bill Connor (Vic Morrow), a despicably racist middle-aged man who finds himself in a variety of different situations where he's the one being prejudiced against. The second takes place at a retirement home where one of the residents, Mr. Bloom (Scatman Crothers) offers his fellow residents a chance at a new life of sorts. In the third, a young woman, a teacher, Helen (Kathleen Quinlan), is on a road trip west when she meets Anthony (Jeremy Licht) with a strange hold and ability to control his family. And last, John Valentine (John Lithgow), a man who hates flying, is on a cross-country flight and struggling mightily as the plane flies through a storm. Looking out the window, Valentine is absolutely convinced that something is out on the wing, tearing up the engine. No one else on board sees it though. Is he nuts?

I loved the original Twilight Zone episodes from creator/writer Rod Serling so I went into this movie with some at least modest expectations. As a result, I was more than a little worried as I watched the prologue, two men (Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd) driving at night on a road trip out in the desert. The tone was okay -- feeling like a set-up -- if a little odd, but a really stupid twist (supposedly a shocker?) comes completely out of left field. If it was supposed to be a shocker, it came across as laughable. Thankfully, it wasn't a complete harbinger of what was to come. For the most part, the movie does what it's supposed to do. It's creepy, unsettling and plays like a tribute to the original show. Is it perfect? No, not at all. Of the four segments, one is really good, two only good, and one really bad.

Beyond the actual movie, 'Zone' is known for a horrific accident that claimed the lives of three cast members on-set, including star Vic Morrow. Filming the movie's opening segment, Morrow and two child actors were killed when a helicopter crashed onto them after several explosions sent the helicopter out of control. There is actually some horrifically brutal footage of the accident via Youtube if you're curious. It's sickening stuff. The accident put the film in limbo, producers and the studio debating whether to continue with the film. The first segment's director, John Landis, took a ton of heat for the accident (understandably so), even getting through a lawsuit that ruled no one was at fault for the accident. With absolutely no disrespect meant to Morrow or the two child actors, a cloud hung over the film's production and eventual release. The opening segment with Morrow is one of the "only good" segments, but it's difficult to watch it without thinking about what actually happened in bringing this portion of the film to life.

Almost as a novelty, the four segments were divided by four different directors, Landis, Steven Spielberg, Joe Dante and George Miller. The odd part? Spielberg -- the most accomplished of the four by far -- delivers the weakest segment of the film by far. Apparently Spielberg was greatly affected by Morrow's death and debated even continuing the film. He did stick with it, but biographies claim the director just mailed in the effort, and it shows. While Crothers does a good job in his part, the segment plays like a happy go-lucky after school special. In other words? Nothing like the best Twilight Zone episodes, not even the average ones. Directing the prologue and the opening portion, Landis' parts are hit or miss. The Morrow story is good, but it had to be edited on the fly following Morrow's death. The end result is a rather abrupt ending.

Thankfully, the final two portions make up for the somewhat slow start. The Joe Dante portion is based off a Zone episode titled 'It's a Good Life' with the original star, Bill Mumy, making a quick appearance. Quinlan does a fine job as Helen, the young teacher thrust into something she can't even comprehend at first. 12-year old Licht is incredibly creepy as young Anthony, a boy with special powers. Also look for Kevin McCarthy and William Schallert in key parts. The highlight though is George Miller's segment, based off maybe the most well known and classic Twilight Zone episode ever, 'Nightmare at 20,000 Feet' starring William Shatner. Lithgow's performance as an obsessed, possibly paranoid airline passenger is the best performance in the entire movie. It is a truly unsettling segment, also delivering the biggest and best twist of all the four stories.

In the end, the TV show turned movie is a mixed bag. More than a movie that stands on its own, it plays like a tribute without a whole lot originality. Wrapping up at just 101 minutes, it covers a whole lot of ground. Could 15-20 more minutes have aided the cause? Maybe not, but it couldn't have hurt. Also listen for Burgess Meredith as the narrator, transitioning from story to story and keeping us mildly informed....as much as the Twilight Zone will allow!!! Imagine a dun-dun-duh!!! at the end of that statement.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983): ** 1/2 /****

The Last Man on Earth

One of my all-time favorite books, Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, has been a frequent source of material for film adaptations. The book -- truly scary and unsettling -- has transitioned well to the screen, including Charlton Heston in 1971's The Omega Man and Will Smith in 2007's I Am Legend. As good as those two films are, the first film version may be the best, 1964's The Last Man on Earth.

It is 1968, and it has been three years since an unknown plague-like disease turned seemingly everyone on Earth into a variation of zombie and vampire. Among the wreckage, one man, Robert Morgan (Vincent Price), somehow survived the pandemic and has lived completely on his own for three straight years. He has created a routine, finding supplies, roaming the city and most importantly, protecting himself. Every single night, the zombie vampires descend on his house and is led by his best friend and co-worker, Ben (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). Feeling a variation of survivor guilt while missing his wife and daughter, Robert edges ever closer to insanity. Can he find some way to keep on surviving before the armies of mutants finally get to him?

While I liked both 'Omega' and 'Legend,' neither film really stuck close to the source material Matheson presented in his 1954 novel. Wouldn't you know it? It sticks pretty close to the novel, and it is significantly better for it. Sure, certain things have been tweaked and changed. Matheson's undead were highly intelligent, fast-moving vampires who played mind games with the last man on Earth, trying to drive him mad each night to the point he hands himself over to them. In 'Man,' they are much more zombie-like, slow-moving and not intelligent at all. Morgan hangs garlic and mirrors and lightly bars his windows and doors so not exactly a fortified house. Famous zombie director George Romero even admitted that Matheson's novel and this film were a major inspiration for his classic Night of the Living Dead. So yes, there were changes made, but they allow the true nature of the story and movie to work so well.

Without the huge star power of Heston and Smith, Vincent Price is nonetheless a great choice to play Morgan, the last surviving human being on Earth. An actor predominantly known for his niche in horror and sci-fi films (typically playing some variation of bad guy), Price rises to the occasion, doing a great job portraying Morgan. As was the case with the later movies, it is a part that most actors would dream of. The spotlight is on you and you alone. The nature of the part is perfect because it allows for some interpretation. Price tries to keep his routine and stay calm about it, but it's easy to see he's quickly losing his grip on his isolated reality. In an extended flashback, we see why he's been drive to this point, meeting his wife (Emma Danieli) and young daughter (Christi Courtland) while also seeing a pre-vampire Ben in some eerie, unsettling scenes.

Beyond the acting of the isolated man, these movies transition well because of the premise, one man exploring an empty world. Yep, don't forget, the vampires can't go out in the day, allowing Morgan a chance to drive around safely. We see his routine in a great extended sequence over the first 20 minutes. He visits a grocery store for fresh garlic, investigates buildings for the vampires sleeping/hiding away the day, burns their bodies in an ever-growing fire with a billowing smoke cloud, and occasionally visits his daughter's "grave." This is a film made mostly with Italian backing and was filmed on-location in Rome, giving these scenes a different but oddly appropriate Euro-look to the story. This isn't NYC, Chicago, or L.A., it's an isolated, unnamed metropolitan city that serves as the backdrop for Morgan's life. Nicely done to directors Sidney Salkow and Ubaldo Ragona (the Italian part of the equation).

Like 'Omega' and 'Legend,' this 1964 version suffers some in the third act when we find out that maybe Morgan isn't alone. He meets Ruth (Franca Bettoia), a young woman who managed to survive the spreading disease but is now showing the early signs of the zombie-like transition. It's not that these segments are bad or uninteresting. They're just not as interesting as the build-up. Thankfully, the twist in the final scenes sticks closely to Matheson's novel ending, righting the ship with the best ending possible. Happy ending? Oh, no, not at all, but this isn't a story that calls for a happy ending. Yes, there are issues here. The Italian-to-English dubbing leaves something to be desired, the budget places certain limitations on the scale, but for me those were minor issues. I rank it with I Am Legend as the best version, and I feel safe recommending it to Matheson fans, or just someone looking for a smart, well-written sci-fi/horror classic. I included a trailer link below, but if you want to watch the full version, check it out HERE at Youtube. Fair warning; it's far from a good print.

The Last Man on Earth (1964): *** 1/2 /****

Gojira

It is a character that has spawned countless movies, sequels, prequels, spoofs. The character? Oh, yes, the Japanese monster himself, Godzilla, an immense dinosaur-like creature who wreaks havoc on the Pacific. The Godzilla franchise has become a beast unto itself (Pun! Words are fun!) with its cult following, and another reboot is due in 2014, but the creature had to start somewhere, and that's the 1954 original, Gojira.

A Japanese fishing boat goes missing in the ocean, and in the aftermath, several rescue ships are lost as well. What exactly is going on? Some cite an ancient legend of a creature, Godzilla, who terrorized coastal fishing villages with the villagers sacrificing young women to appease him. Following the disappearances, a village on an isolated village reports sightings and weird occurrences, prompting archaeologist Yamane (Takashi Shimura) and a team to investigate. They find odd clues that speak to an immense creature's background, everything from radioactivity to evidence of a creature from millions of years ago. It's on the island the creature is first sighted, a reptilian creature several hundred feet tall with seemingly no weakness. What can Japan and the government do? Can anything at all be done to stop this creature?

My first exposure to the Godzilla character was this pretty bad but highly entertaining Roland Emmerich-directed 1998 blockbuster. That's not to say I was unaware of the Japanese monster's other....endeavors, but I finally decided to check the original out. The Godzilla character itself is a gem, a radioactive beast wreaking havoc wherever it goes. It's the distinct look of the creature -- dinosaur-like -- and that very unique roar (listen HERE) that is forever linked to him and the franchise/series. He is like King Kong on steroids, transplanting New York City for Tokyo, and his attacks provide some of the movie's coolest moments.

The problem I had is that there isn't enough of the Godzilla monster in this already pretty short movie at 95 minutes. From director Ishiro Honda, the story focuses far more on the human aspect of the story. We see the efforts of the doctors and scientists (like Shimura's archaeologist) who want to study and examine the monster while others in the government and military want to destroy it as quickly as possible. That's fine because a solid story on top of some epic monster attacks is gravy. Instead, this almost documentary-like style shooting is dull, stilted and preachy. Cheesy though they may be, Godzilla's attacks are the high points of the story. They're limited by 1950s special effects and a smallish budget, but there is a certain retro (read: cheap) charm to the scenes. Far more attention should have been paid to the creature, not the dull individuals hunting him.

I debated how much to criticize this next issue I had with the 1954 original. The script is less than subtle in its condemnation of the United States for nuclear testing in the Pacific in the 1940s/1950s. How was Godzilla created exactly? He was some sort of prehistoric creature unearthed by the nuclear testing who grew to immense proportions because of the radioactivity. I don't want to sound insensitive when I write this, and that's why I struggled with how to even put it. The conclusion of WWII, and more importantly the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, was just nine years removed when this movie was made. The condemnation of the U.S. (and nuclear testing on an international scale) is fair, but it's so beyond obvious the message that it becomes painful to watch. Historical rant and side note; the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, started the conflict with WWII, and committed countless horrific war crimes. An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives. I in no way intend this to sound as insensitive as it does in my head, but a not thinly veiled dig at the U.S. use of atomic bombs sounds like sour grapes and gives an almost amateur feel to the script.

Enough ranting, let's get back to the movie. The acting ranges from impressive (Shimura) to acceptable to wooden and even amateurish at times. A story about a creature terrorizing Tokyo and Japan is stripped down to a.....love story?!? You've got to be kidding me. Yamane's daughter, Emiko (Momoko Kochi), is in love with Ogata (Akira Takarada), a salvage ship captain. Oh, no! She's already engaged to a brilliant scientist, Serizawa (Akihiko Hirata), who may hold the key to defeating Godzilla! That's the best they could come up with? A love triangle? Distractions from Godzilla attacks are one thing, but using maybe the laziest storytelling technique ever as a distraction? Yeah, I'm not going to be on board with that.

Sorry to say I was hugely disappointed with this original film. I'll stick with it to a point because Godzilla is a great creature character, but the series is walking on thin ice.

Gojira (1954): **/****

I Am Legend

First written by author Richard Matheson in 1954, 'I Am Legend' is a gem of a book, a story that genuinely creeped me out and sent shivers up and down my back. Movie studios saw potential, and they've gone to the well a handful of times, including the most recent effort, 2007's I Am Legend.

It's been three years since a genetically-mutated medicine reversed its positives and wiped out some 94% of the world's population. Like a disease, it spread, turning normal human beings into mutants, Darkseekers who cannot step into any sort of light. In a silent, completely alone Manhattan in New York City, Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith) fears he is the last man on Earth. Neville is somehow immune to the disease that affected so many, and now lives on his own, his dog, Sam, a German shepherd, his only companion. They travel through NYC looking for supplies, for help of any sort. All the while, Robert keeps working at a cure, hoping that his blood holds the key to stopping the disease spread.

As bankable a star as Hollywood currently has, Will Smith is the main reason to go see this 2007 science fiction-horror-apocalyptic story. At times, it's easy to think of him as a movie star and not an actor, but he's shown on multiple occasions he is truly an actor. As the last man on Earth, the focus in on Smith's Neville and no one else. He dominates the screen. Dropping into this story some 3 years since the disease, we see Neville's routine from day-to-day. Survive, supply, search and get back home to a fortified house on Washington Square before the Darkseekers come out from their daylight hiding places. In quick flashbacks, we see Robert's involvement in the evacuation of Manhattan, adding another layer to the character. It has to be an actor's dream to have a role like this, and Smith doesn't disappoint.

Most importantly, Smith's performance feels very real. Yes, it's a movie. Yes, he's working off a script, but it feels like a human being would react. Imagine being alone with no one to talk to for three years, but a loving dog that rarely leaves your side. Neville has set up mannequins around NYC and named them, talking to them every day, wondering if he should flirt with a "cute girl" at the video store. He goes to that video store and picks up a different movie everyday (he's working his way through the 'G Section'). Neville hunts -- for food and Darkseekers -- and waits at a specific point each day in case anyone listens to his radio broadcasts. The pressure becomes almost unbearable for him, and rightfully so. The spotlight is on Will Smith, and he certainly embraces it here in a sympathetic, heartfelt, and emotional role.

So what else? The look of this film from director Francis Lawrence is a lynchpin to everything working. The opening sequence is startling especially, laying out the groundwork for the story to come. Driving a souped-up Mustang, Neville and Sam drive through an empty NYC. They're hunting for deer, passing completely isolated, empty streets. Cars line the curbs where they were left. Buildings tower over them, no one inside at all...no one human at least. Seeing New York City like this provides some truly amazing shots. I especially liked composer James Newton Howard's score, his main them in particular. Listen HERE. It is underplayed in a perfect way. Everything about the movie could have been big, loud and obvious, but Lawrence's direction, Howard's music and Smith's acting keep things grounded.

All those positives aside, there are some negatives. The first 60-70 minutes are pretty perfect. The last 30-40 minutes aren't. SPOILERS from here on in SPOILERS We learn that Neville isn't alone when he is rescued one night by Anna (Alice Braga), a woman in her late 20s/early 30s, and Ethan (Charlie Tahan), a young boy, who have similarly managed to survive. Maybe it's just because the focus isn't entirely on Neville anymore, but there's just little interest in seeing Anna and Ethan's plight. The pacing up to this point is perfect, doing a great job of building tension and keeping you guessing, but the last 30 minutes (especially the ending) feels rushed. It ain't a happy ending either, but that wasn't an issue. It works in a big way, tweaking Matheson's original ending, but that's to be expected. It would have been hard to sustain the momentum throughout, but 'Legend' gets close.

An incredibly creepy, well-acted sci-fi horror flick. There are flaws, but the positives outweigh the negatives. I loved Smith's performance, and that rises above any other issues I have.

I Am Legend (2007): *** 1/2 /****

Night of the Living Dead

The name George Romero is synonymous with one thing and one thing only in films; zombies. He basically created a whole new horror genre, using the undead as a menace unlike anything audiences had seen. Romero has directed 16 films, many of them about a zombie apocalypse, but the whole thing started with 1968's Night of the Living Dead.

Visiting their father's grave, brother and sister, Johnny (Russell Streiner) and Barbra (Judith O'Dea), are attacked by a lone man who doesn't as much as utter a word to them. Johnny is knocked out, leaving Barbra to run for safety, the sluggish man pursuing her. She makes her way to an isolated house in the country and seeks protection. Inside, she meets Ben (Duane Jones), a young man similarly running for his life. They find others hiding in the house's cellar, but what's going on outside? Soon more people show up, and the radio reports countless attacks all over the country. The recently dead have come back to life, and they're feasting on anything alive.

Dubbed 'the Godfather of zombies,' Romero has made a career with his zombie-themed horror movies, from this original through the 1970s, 1980s and on right up through 2009's Survival of the Dead. That's his reputation, and it's a good one. He basically created the concept of zombies from the ground up. In a movie age where nothing is original, how cool is that? A whole genre?!? One guy? Awesome with a capital A. So where to start? Some rules. Originally, zombies can't run. They walk slowly, almost dragging their feet. No talking, only groaning/moaning. And most importantly? They exist for one thing; to feast on the living.

Made for just $130,000, 'Living' is a low-budget gem. Filmed in eerie, foreboding black and white (even washed out), the movie certainly looks cheap, even amateurish at times. The cast features no stars, much less recognizable faces. The story is almost exclusively limited to this one isolated house in the country, a small group of survivors banding together as a small army of the undead descend on the house. The camera is right there with the survivors, Romero using weird, odd and off-center angles to shoot the action. Extreme close-ups -- whether of the survivors or the ever-increasing zombies -- give the whole proceedings an uneasy, unsettling feeling. There are very few GOTCHA moments. Instead, that sense of doom builds as the survivors learn more about what's going on all over the country.

The acting ranges from tolerable to really bad to surprisingly good. All the performances are somewhat wooden, even stilted, but let's start with the positive. Jones as Ben is a bright spot. The fact that the movie has an African American main character (with an otherwise entirely white cast) is worth noting too. In a hectic situation, Ben thinks things through when most people's first impulse would be to panic. O'Dea as Barbra does a hell of a shell shock. Other survivors include a married couple, Harry (Karl Hardman) and Helen (Marilyn Eastman), caring for their sick daughter (Kyra Schon), and a young teenage couple, Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley). Also look for Romero making a cameo as a reporter asking questions about the undead.

My first encounter with a Romero film was the 2004 film Dawn of the Dead, a tweaked update of the zombie movie. Blood-splattered throughout, it's a gem. This is the polar opposite. It's about the fear. Much of the movie unfortunately is spent among the dynamic of the group. There's far too much talking for my taste. 'Living' is at its best when the survivors are directly dealing with the zombies. The attacks are truly scary, individuals battling an enemy that won't stop attacking. The finale is a gem, the zombies finally organizing (do zombies organize? Eh) an attack on the house. The final scene provides quite a shocker, even though it's telegraphed some in the scenes leading up to it. A mixed bag, but certainly an influential film. Watch the entire film HERE at Youtube.

Night of the Living Dead <---trailer (1968): ** 1/2 /****