The Walking Dead (1936)

Boris Karloff as a zombie.  Or no, he's not a zombie.  Or maybe he is.  We really aren't sure.

Intro.

As Halloween approached, I realized that I had reviewed a Bela Lugosi film, but not a Boris Karloff one.  Recently my friend Catherine has been lending me copies of the comic book series The Walking Dead, so I took it as no coincidence when I saw the listing on TCM for a film by the same name.  I decided to watch and realized that it was unlike any monster movie I had expected.

Overview

The Walking Dead begins with the conviction of a man associated with a group of high-society racketeers.  Although everyone thinks he'll be acquitted, the judge sentences him to ten years without parole.  His partners, still outside the law, decide to hire a hitman to kill the judge.  Meanwhile, John Ellman (Boris Karloff) has just come out of prison after serving his time and gets a job from a detective to shadow the judge, who is suspected of adultery.  Things take an unexpected turn when the hitman kills the judge and leaves him in Ellman's car.  The only two witnesses are Nancy (Marguerite Churchill) and Jimmy (Warren Hull), but the hitman threatens to kill them if they utter one word about it.  Ellman discovers the judge's body (and it's the same judge who sentenced Ellman years ago), and is arrested for the murder.  One of the racketeers, Nolan (Ricardo Cortez), is a lawyer and defends Ellman at trial.  And by defends, I mean, makes certain that Ellman is convicted and sentenced to the electric chair.  So right at the eleventh hour, Jimmy and Nancy come forward to try and save Ellman's life, confiding in their boss, the scientist Dr. Evan Beaumont (Edmund Gwenn).  Nolan intercepts the call and purposefully delays getting a stay of execution.  The governor's phone call finally comes to the jail at midnight, just seconds after Ellman is electrocuted.  He's declared dead, but Dr. Beaumont insists on collecting his body instead of sending him to the morgue.  Conveniently, Beaumont happens to have all the equipment needed to hook up Ellman's body and jolt it back to life.  It's never been done before, but he and Nancy and Jimmy succeed at bringing Ellman back from the dead.  It isn't all happy endings though, as Ellman comes back with no memory and no ability to walk or talk or anything.  With a lot of work, he is finally able to walk (though he seriously walks like Romero's zombies) and slowly regains both memory and speech, aided by his love of the piano.  Dr. Beaumont hosts a concert for Ellman, with the purpose of showing off his amazing scientific achievement.  The police also arrange for all of the racketeers to arrive, to judge their reactions to seeing Ellman alive.  Sure enough, Ellman somehow knows exactly who was responsible for his death, and goes after each man in the nights afterwards.  He confronts each one with the question "Why did you have me killed?" and one by one each man dies, though not all by Ellman's hands.  On his last night with Beaumont, Ellman sneaks out to the cemetery.  But he's followed by Nancy, who is concerned for his safety, and she in turn is followed by the racketeers.  It all comes to an end in the cemetery where Ellman dies and this time stays dead, keeping his knowledge of the afterlife a secret.

Highlights

I have to admit, this film took me by surprise.  I expected it to be a typical B-horror film from the 30's with plenty of women screaming and creepy monsters lurking about.  Instead, I found it to be a psychologically thrilling film that really has a lot going for it.  Boris Karloff, first of all, is amazing.  I know he's often cast as Frankenstein and you can't really look at him without imaging bolts coming out of his neck, but as a wrongfully accused musician, I found myself feeling very empathetic towards him.  It's heartbreaking to watch the delays that occur during his execution - if only those prison guards had answered the phone sooner instead of talking!  Equally fascinating is how after they brought him back, he wasn't just magically okay.  We see the long process of recovery and rejoice when he finds a piano and can remember how to play.   

Though the movie doesn't dig too deeply into the subconscious, or stay too long on deeper topics, there are a few mentioned that deserve to be reviewed.  My primary example is Dr. Evan's growing fascination with what Ellman witnessed during the time when he was dead.  He keeps after him, even as Ellman lies dying in the caretaker's cottage of the cemetery.  Ultimately he is left without more of an answer than just the words "after the shock, I felt peace."  I also appreciated the fact that Nancy was an equal in standing with Jimmy as a worker in Beaumont's lab - not a secretary or a nurse, but a scientist.  Nancy is my favorite character in this film because she's also the one who pushes Jimmy into finally stepping forward and afterward nurses Ellman back to health and refuses to slack on her obligation to him.  I should also add (while I'm thinking of it) that the title is a nice play on the "Dead Man Walking" term used in prisons for men on death row.  Ellman is literally a dead man walking who then becomes the walking dead.  Or can he really be called the walking dead? 

One of the questions that I kept asking myself was whether or not Ellman could be considered a zombie.  After he is brought back to life, he gains control over his mental capacity and doesn't go around eating people (although that part of the zombie culture wouldn't arrive until much later).  Basically, he is in control of himself and not subject to the wills of other forces, so how can he be a zombie?  Well, it is said several times that he seems possessed by a supernatural force, and has become an instrument of some otherworldly power.  How he can now sense those responsible for his death is beyond comprehension, unless he learned it while he was dead.  In fact, Boris Karloff's facial expressions are outstanding in this regard - he can switch from calm and complacent to manically furious in moments.  In the scenes where he confronts the men who framed him, he seems like he really is possessed, and as each man meets his death, we see a close up of Boris Karloff looking like he's coming out of a trance and looking in horror at what's happened.  Perhaps that is why he then goes to the cemetery, a place where he feels he belongs.  While Ellman may not be a traditional zombie, one thing is for certain.  He does embody the fear of our own death, which is at the heart of many zombie films**.  But with his return to life, he also holds that fear at bay until people like Beaumont insist on getting answers and insight into that one thing for which we have no hard evidence - what happens after we die?  Truly, we each have our faiths and beliefs, but could we really resist asking someone who has been there and returned?  It's an interesting situation and one I was not expecting from a horror film.

Review and Recommendation

I highly recommend The Walking Dead not just to zombie-enthusiasts, but to everyone.  Great acting by Karloff and some great camerawork (love the work with those shadows!) make for a good movie, and the added moral questions makes it even more enjoyable.  Definitely not a film to pass over!

**I just finished the second volume of The Walking Dead comic book series by Rick Grimes, and in the back there is an epilogue by Simon Pegg.  Pegg writes that zombies embody our fears of death and our fears that we are little more than animals running on sheer impulse.  It's a great write-up and also a great series - you should check them out!

The Time Machine (1960)

"Can't repeat the past?...Why, of course you can!" - Jay Gatsby 

Intro.

Ever since I can remember, I've been enamored by both science and literature, as well as the intricate dance they create around the problems that continue to puzzle humanity.  Literature can build on the science of a time and open up possibilities that may lead to new innovations.  Undoubtedly, H. G. Wells revolutionized the science fiction genre in an exciting time in England's Victorian era, when science was cultured and inventors praised.  It's the perfect setting and story for a story about time travel.

Overview

The Time Machine begins on January 5, 1900, when George Wells (Rod Taylor) stumbles into his dining room, greeting his guests looking as if he's been in a major explosion.  He sits down and explains to them that he has mastered time travel and thus begins his flashback story.  One week earlier, on New Year's Eve, George had shown them a miniature time machine and made it disappear using some sort of pressure device to travel in the fourth dimension.  When they scoff at his discovery and suggest that it has no usefulness or commercial value, he sees them off and then tests out his full scale model in his laboratory.  Slowly he passes through a day at a time, watching the sun and stars move and watching the fashions change on the mannequin in the dressmaker's shop across the street.  He flies through, going faster still, and stops in 1917 because his house has been boarded up around him.  He makes his way out and finds a different world - one with a lot of cars and people.  He sees a man who looks exactly like his friend David and stops him in the street.  It's a young man in uniform who is David's son (he's referred to as a baby in the opening).  He says his father was killed in the war and that the house has been kept out of respect for his father's friend George, who disappeared in 1900.  George, deeply moved, returns to his time machine and decides to push onward to the future.  This time he is forcefully stopped in 1940 during the bombing of Britain.  It's so devastating and his house winds up destroyed, that George can't stay.  He makes it to 1960 and marvels at all the building and progress that's been made, only to see it destroyed by a bomb scare.  Nuclear bombs decimate the city and cause a volcano to explode, trapping George and his machine in lava.  It's still moving through time though, so George is somewhat protected.  The lava forms a rocky encasement and he must speed through time until the rocks wear away in year 802,701.  He emerges into an Eden-like garden, properly cared for, cultivated and nurtured.  He finds people too - a group of silent, golden-haired young adults gathered around a river.  One of them, a young woman, slips into the current and begins to drown.  Her cries go unheard until George jumps in to save her.  He learns that she is one of the Eloi people who live above ground and obviously have no minds of their own.  They are like cattle, dumb and driven by the people who live below ground - the Morlocks.  George's machine is stolen by the Morlocks and taken into their temple-like underground dwelling.  He and the girl, Weena (Yvette Mimieux), try to figure out a way to get in, but their efforts stop when an air raid siren sounds and all the Eloi start marching into the temple.  Weena goes in and George has to figure out how to get in after her.  Turns out the Morlocks are only raising and breeding the Eloi like cattle and eventually call them in to kill and eat them.  A massive fight to save the Eloi begins and only ends once they have destroyed the temple.  But George finds and returns to his time machine, and is forced to use it to escape without Weena.  His friends in 1900 don't believe his story, although he does bring some proof with him.  In the end George returns, supposedly to the Eloi, in an attempt to help them live and survive and re-establish civilization.

Highlights

I regret that I have not read the book, The Time Machine, though I will certainly do so now.  I'm curious to see just what happened to George between 1900 and whenever he reached the Eloi.  What stops did he make?  Were all of them due to war?  Apparently this was the story that H. G. Wells wanted made into a film the most, but was one of the last to be done.  It comes at a time that has seen a lot of turbulance, as noted in the three stops George makes.  In 1960, the Cold War was still a threat and air raids were held.  There is some hope though, as there are at least some survivors left to make it into 802,701.

The writing in the film is very well done, as is the nice attention to detail.  I loved the opening in George's library where there are clocks literally everywhere.  It reminded me a great deal of The Great Gatsby, which I quoted in the tagline.  Time is pervasive - it affects us all and yet none of us have any power over it.  This desire to go into the future and to also return to the past is a deep part of the human experience.  Ironically, this very desire - the curiosity we all have - is what is missing from the Eloi.  They don't have any reason to figure things out, to explore or even have use for writing or reading.  They've never even seen fire.  In this sense, George becomes a Prometheus figure to them.  He brings not only fire, but also knowledge.  That's what he wants to do in the end; to return to lovely Weena and help her people survive. 

What I liked the most about The Time Machine was how many questions it raised.  I know they were raised when the book published, but think about how much has changed and where science and literature have gone since then.  Yes, we had the story, but it took us time to be able to get it properly told on screen.  The use of time-lapse photography was a new and innovative concept in 1959, and earned the film an Academy Award for best special effects.  Likewise, the film itself made it easier for later films like Back to the Future, Star Trek, Dead Zone, and countless others that deal with time travel.  It also adds to certain films like It's a Wonderful Life where we realize how interconnected we all are - how the absence of one person can change not only the past, but also the future.  It's the butterfly effect that spans generations and so much of that creativity began with one story by one person.  Equally interesting is the depiction of the split in the human race.  Is that really a possibility in our future?  Could some of us turn into hairy, glowing-eyed cannibalistic Morlocks?  That's the real terror in the whole film; that we could degenerate into such creatures.

Review and Recommendation - and a Question for Readers
I loved this movie much more than I expected to.  I've enjoyed some science fiction films in my time, but I've never been a die-hard fan of the genre.  That may have changed though with this film.  It's not merely about imagining wormholes and alternate realities.  It's more about people, humanity, what makes civilization work.  It's about how science can ultimately save or destroy us, but it's up to ourselves to use it justly.  No, George's machine may seem commercially impractical for the present, but it helps shape and ensure our future.  That's what we should strive for, with or without the aid of a machine.  I definitely recommend this film to everyone!

And finally as an end note, I'd like to talk about the closing of the film.  George has taken off and his friend David and George's housekeeper, Mrs. Watchett (ahh, I just got that her name is "Watch"-ett) are left wondering about his disappearance.  As George is a practical man, they realize he must have taken something with him to help the Eloi.  They see that three books have been taken from the library, but they don't know which ones.  "Which three would you take?" David asks Mrs. Watchett.  Neither of them has an answer and the film closes.  So I wonder, what three books would you take if you had to help a young, naive people try to re-establish a working society?  The only book I thought of for sure that I'd take would be a large dictionary to try and help them learn to write and communicate efficiently.  Any thoughts or ideas from my great readers?  Please comment!

P.S. Recently I read an article that scientists have developed a small-scale version of teleportation.  Read all about it here.  This can change the next dimension - space.  (Yes, you should cue the music here and add "the final frontier".)   

P.P.S. F. Scott Fitzgerald.  The Great Gatsby.  New York: Charles Scribner, 1925.

The Mummy (1959)

Note to self: next time I invade an Egyptian tomb, I won't read aloud anything I find in there.

Intro.

In keeping with my October fright fest, I've been watching as many old monster movies, zombie flicks and Hitchcock thrillers as I can find.  Today I watched the British remake of The Mummy, which was a Universal picture from 1932 starring Boris Karloff.  The remake was done after Hammer studios in England struck a deal with Universal to remake all the classic horror films - this time in Technicolor.  I regretfully have not seen the 1932 version, but the 1959 version proved to be chilling enough!

Overview

1895 in some unknown area, a team of archeologists uncover the lost tomb of an Egyptian high priestess, Princess Ananka.  The leader of the group, Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmar), explores the crypt alone while his partner Joseph (Raymond Huntley) goes back to tell the others of the find.  Stephen finds an old scroll (the Scroll of Life, he calls it) and decides to read it aloud in the crypt.  Not a good idea, as the words bring to life another mummy (Christopher Lee) from behind the wall panel.  Outside Joeseph and Stephen's son John (Peter Cushing) hear screaming and only find Stephen out of his mind with fear.  He's sent back home to a nursing home, where he's declared beyond help, and the team closes the tomb and returns home with Ananka's coffin and burial relics.  They don't have the scroll though, as a local man, Mehemet Bey (George Pastell), has taken it and decides to try and re-open the tomb, unleash the mummy and seek vengeance on those who have desecrated the Egyptian grave.  Three years later and Stephen is still in the hospital, convinced that something is coming to kill him.  He has a violent outburst at the time when a mysterious package containing "Egyptian relics" is lost in transport in the swamp near the hospital.  It's the mummy alright, and he rises from the muddy swamp at Mehemet's command.  The mummy breaks into Stephen's barred and locked room and kills him.  As you can imagine, the mummy then goes after Joseph, whom he also kills.  The mummy finally goes after John, but is stopped mid-way through the attack by the sight of John's wife Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux).  Isobel bears a striking resemblance to Ananka, and the mummy leaves.  Inspector Mulrooney (Eddie Byrne) begins his investiagation into the murders, and gets the entire legend of Ananka from John.  Apparently when Ananka died, her high priest Kharis (with whom she shared a forbidden love) tried to bring her back to life with the scroll, but was apprehended before he could finish the ritual.  In punishment, he got his tongue cut out, was wrapped in bandages and sealed into the wall of the tomb, to keep eternal vigilance over his Princess.  That explains what finally happens - the mummy returns to kill John, but when Isobel intervenes, the mummy captures her and carries her off toward the swamp.  What will kill the mummy in the end?  Will Isobel and/or John survive?

Highlights
I really enjoyed seeing this film in Technicolor.  Everything feels right for the classic 1950's monster movie, right down the smog rising up from the eerie swamp.  It's shot well and with attention to detail, particularly in the flashback scene of the story of Ananka's death.  I haven't studied Egyptology much, but I can tell that they tried to give some amount of reverence to the rituals of mummification.  What really impressed me was how the mummy came to be a mummy - if you look at the film deep down, it could even be called a love story.  Khardis loved Ananka so much he risked everything to try and bring her back from the dead so that they could finally realize their love.  Even as a mummy he not only seeks vengeance (see below), but recognizes Isobel to look just like Ananka.  It's beauty that tames and kills all beasts, as all the great monster movies show us.

There are some interesting points to be made regarding what this film reflects about our culture.  In the film, Mehemet tells John that his people have dared to assume ignorance and blasphemied his religion.  Although John tries to defend the archeologists and the study of cultures, there is a good point in Mehemet's rage - it is one thing to gather artifacts and study them, but it is another to disregard the beliefs of a culture and desecrate the graves of the dead.  I think what it really comes down to is respect.  Not only that, but it speaks a little to the British empire.  In 1932 Britain still controlled Egypt.  But in 1959, most of Britain's colonies had declared independence.  There was also the British loss of control at the Suez canal in 1956.  So it makes sense to have an Egyptian legend come to life and strike fear into the hearts of the British.  But in the face of all this, it is encouraging to see that while the mummy is terrifying, he is, in a way, justified.  He doesn't go off killing just anyone - only those who desecrated his love's tomb.  He is in effect exacting vengeance not only for the destruction of the tomb, but also for the lack of understanding shown by the British.  He's a monster, but perhaps only a misunderstood one.     

 

Review and Recommendation    
Overall good acting and nice detail in the cinematography, I think this version of The Mummy is very well done.  It's very entertaining and not too serious - a great film for any fans of the horror, thriller or monster-movie genres.

P.S. Fun fact from TCM - Christopher Lee was the first actor to play all three classic monsters: Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958), and The Mummy. 

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Well, a slightly more sloppy, drooling, cannibalistic version of us, but still us.

Intro.

Part of my new induction to the world of zombie films included watching both the original Night of the Living Dead from 1968 and the remake from 1990.  Even if you haven't seen either film, you probably know the story - a group of strangers in a farmhouse; lots of slow, flesh-eating zombies; some crazy girl named Barbra.  You've probably even heard the line "they're coming to get you, Barbra!"  So my question going into this film was will it live up to its mighty legacy?   

Overview
Night of the Living Dead actually starts in the evening, with Barbra (Judith O'Dea) and her brother Johnny (Russell Streiner) venturing out to a country cemetery to pay respect to their father.  Although Barbra is obviously uncomfortable in the creepy graveyard, Johnny teases her like when she was a kid - "they're coming to get you, Barbra!" he calls out to her.  The only problem is that another "visitor" in the cemetery actually is coming for her and when he attacks her, Johnny steps in only to get gnawed on himself.  Barbra takes off running, but realizes that Johnny had the car keys.  She coasts the car downhill, hits a tree, then runs to the nearest farmhouse.  She isn't alone long, as a pickup truck pulls up and out comes well-dressed Ben (Duane Jones).  He seems to know exactly what to do and sets about barricading the house.  He even covers the homeowner's half-eaten corpse, despite Barbra's obvious state of shock and complete helplessness.  He tells her about how he saw a gas station blow up because of those "things" and he realizes that they are afraid of fire.  A few stray zombies later and they realize that there are people (non-zombie people) hiding in the basement of the house.  There's a young couple, Tom (Keith Wayne) and Judy (Judith Ridley), and a married couple, Harry (Karl Hardman) and Helen (Marilyn Eastman) who have a young daughter who is sick in the basement.  Harry is pretty stubborn about everyone taking refuge in the cellar and waiting until help arrives.  Ben nixes that idea as there is only one way in and out and he doesn't want to get cornered.  Tensions grow, fights break out, but in the end they all have to work together to survive or become lunch meat.  A television broadcast tells them there's an emergency shelter nearby, and they agree to risk taking Ben's truck to the nearby gas pump to fill up the tank and get them all out of there.  But of course, nothing really works out for our survivors and they get picked off one by one until there's just Ben in the house.  And even his life is in jeopardy.

Highlights

Boy, there is so much to discuss!  George Romero redefined the zombie genre with this film.  It's funny, but some dynamics in this film reminded me of some previous films in different genres.  Although that can happen when a genre begins or is redefined - often the shaping influences are from a wide range of sources and media.  What Night of the Living Dead reminded me of were the Westerns of John Ford and the thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock.  I thought a lot about Ford's classic, Stagecoach, which in its own way helped revitalize the Western film genre.  In Stagecoach, the idea is very simple - take a group of strangers with different and sometimes clashing personalities, put them together in a tight situation and then give them some "outsiders" to fight, which ultimately brings them together.  Be it in a way station on the stage route or in the farmhouse, the tensions and arguments for the best course of survival are the same.  I even expected Ben to say "I saw a ranch house burnin' last night" and then he tells Barbra he actually did see a fire!  In Night of the Living Dead, the argument is to either stay in the basement or to make a break for it; in Stagecoach the argument is to push on towards Lordsburg or to return with the cavalry where they may or may not be safe.  In respect to Hitchcock, there is some great camera work and also the feeling of claustrophobia - almost the entire film takes place in one space - the farmhouse.  Hitchcock often tried to contain his more intense thrillers (like Lifeboat or Rear Window) to one space.  It creates more tension between the characters in close quarters and increases that claustrophobia! *   

I also keep mentioning "others".  In Night of the Living Dead the monsters are never called zombies.  In fact, in most zombie films, the word is never said.  They are the others, the outsiders.  Although in White Zombie the zombies are named - recognized for the people they are.  That's why it's so important that Johnny and later the daughter are recognized among the zombies (sorry for the spoilers, but really? what did you expect - it's a zombie film!!).  It makes it much harder to fight people you know - how can you be expected to shoot your brother or daughter in the head? **  Recognizing the "other" is the key here - they are us.

To make a bit of a detour, I wanted to talk about what was going on when Night of the Living Dead was made.  The cause for the zombie outbreak is attributed to some radiation brought in by a satellite returning from Venus.  It seems a bit silly now, but in 1968, we were 1) in the middle of the Cold War and worried about nuclear warfare 2) we were also in the Space Race and 3) had yet to land on the moon.  Makes it more of a concern, I think.  And it makes the Russians are the "others" of 1968.  It makes it that much more tragic when Ben dies - not at the hands of the zombies, but at the hands of the overzealous survivors who mistake him for a zombie.  Our own fear and paranoia will destroy us. 

Speaking of Ben and his horrible end, Night of the Living Dead was meant as a commentary on racism.  Ben's the lone African-American in the film, the one guy with any class and BAM he gets killed by friendly fire (or should that be not-so-friendly fire?).  This is where the film really diverges from its parallels with Ford's Westerns - there is no happy ending.  Ben doesn't get to go off into the sunset with a girl.  He gets killed anyway, like the whole thing was for naught.  Society (the guys coming in as relief) doesn't recognize his efforts or what he's endured.  But we see it.  Romero makes us see it and makes us painfully aware that Ben is treated as just another dead zombie.  What does that say about audiences in 1968?  What does it say about us now? ***

As much as this film is about racism, it fails to also address sexism (a major criticism).  Barbra, although in shock, just shuts down once a man arrives to take care of her.  My friends and I yelled at her the entire film because of her inability to do or say anything.  Although it is a good step above White Zombie, it still makes you very angry at Barbra.  Luckily we have more sensible women like Judy and especially Helen to balance it out some.  My friend Rachel brought up a good point - Barbra seems to be more afraid of Ben because she's alone in a house with him (and he's an African-American) than she is of the zombies.  If nothing else, she definitely takes on the "deer in headlights" attitude.  Which is fitting because in this farmhouse there are several animal heads mounted on the wall and Barbra is often shot being close to or right in front of the deer's head.  In some way, this could explain her docile nature.  She can't run, so she freezes up and won't move.  That explains why she's also taken by the zombies - she's easy prey.

The Remake - The Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Since the remake of Night of the Living Dead isn't a classic time-wise, I won't give it a separate write-up.  The basic plot and story line remain, but there are some major changes.  Thankfully the biggest one is Barbra (played by Patricia Tallman).  She kicks ass in the remake!  The new Barbra is a determined woman, one who won't passively cower on a couch when there are zombies to kill and people to save.  Instead of Romero commenting on racism, this version he focuses on sexism.  The ending is also very different, as Barbra actually makes it out of the house, down the road and stumbles onto the search and rescue crew.  A key scene there is when she sees a fenced in ring and spectators watching a "zombie fight."  It's a way to distance yourself from zombies being real people - in the remake Tom is related to the farmhouse owner and recongizes many of the zombies as friends and neighbors.  It's a chilling thought about how far you would have to go to survive.  To survive as an individual then, must you turn your back on your family?  Does that have anything to do with the re-establishment of Barbra as a woman of her own independence?  Think about the films of the eighties that dealt with the breaking up of families as a result of women going back to work (Die Hard) comes to mind.  I'm not sure if these ideas are related, as it is getting pretty late and I'm feeling a bit sleepy.  So let me end with this - are zombie movies really about monsters after all?  Or about facing what scares us most about our own selves?    

Review and Recommendation

I recommend both versions of the Night of the Living Dead.  Each one has very good merits and serve as great reflections and commentaries on society.  I have a new-found respect for the zombie genre and look forward to watching more films! 

P.S. I know I've probably left a lot out of this post, which is why you should check out Catherine's zombie blog, here.  If you think of any points you want to bring up, feel free to post comments!!

P.P.S. I was just looking for other sites to reference you for further reading and check this out - it's an article about how Romero was influence by Ford and Hitchcock.  I wasn't making it up - who knew?!  I'm still reading through it, but I couldn't resist linking it!

* I should mention that Romero also used the classic vampire film I Am Legend as inspiration, and possibly the film Things to Come.  

** I also watched the modern zombie film Zombieland right after seeing this film and I loved it!  It mixes both the traditional zombie films with a great sense of humor.  It's a very dark, survival type of humor, often like that seen in war films.  The movie also makes the point never to learn anyone's real name, as you never know when you might need to kill them.  Distance from the other is again in play.  Also, check out the opening shot of Zombieland and the opening shot of Night of the Living Dead (1968).  See anything identical?  I'll give you a hint - it's a pretty big hint that this film is about to comment on American culture.

*** Last note, I swear.  I just realized that 1968 brought America into Vietnam as well.  That's a whole other blog post about racism and fighting "the others".  Something to think about!

October Fun!

My friend Catherine is a big fan of zombie movies.  Really, she's an expert on all things zombie - books, films, general knowledge of how to best barricade her house in case of a zombie virus outbreak.  Anyway, as we are now in October, it's time for all those great classic monster films and we've agreed to watch several old zombie movies together.  I'll post about them here from a general classic-film standpoint and Catherine will be posting about them on her blog.  So keep checking in for the latest and greatest in the undead on film!

Here's her blog, Zombi Ga Imasu !  Enjoy!!