Rankin/Bass And The Eye Of The Tiger

Treating my five-year-old son to his first viewings of the Rankin/Bass holiday classic Santa Claus is Comin' to Town (1970) and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) within twenty-four hours of each other has thrown me into a state of stop-motion shock. These are such well-remembered pieces of my childhood that I didn't think either one would look especially dated to me today, even though it's been several decades since my previous viewings. But man, after watching them both again, and practically back-to-back, I had to think "if this is the kind of stuff I grew up on, if this is the kind of stuff that really mesmerized me as a kid..."

"...then damn, I must be old."

I remember watching Jurassic Park in '93 and shedding an invisible (but real) tear for the death of stop-motion. Yeah, it was true that even top of the line stop-motion always suffered from strobing and I knew that, even in 1981, Clash of the Titans had looked hokey as hell next to the likes of Raiders of the Lost Ark but still...so many great memories from my childhood had been conjured by stop-motion. Wasn't that worth continuing to put up with some obvious artifice? CGI could never duplicate the natural endearment that came with knowing that a character had been painstaking moved by human hands in order to put one foot in front of the other.

In theory, I still believe that but yet, watching the Rankin/Bass special I can't believe that I used to shit my pants once a year over it, and over all the other holiday specials like it.

And Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger? Harryhausen is a genius, that's undeniable. And I can't forget what an experience it was to see this in the theaters. But this movie looks old to me now in a way that many films that are much older don't, if that makes any sense. You'd never guess that it came out the same summer as Star Wars, that's for sure. On the upside, at least Jane Seymour looked every bit as hot as I'd remembered.

More than being faintly disappointed in the movies, though, I'm a little sad about what my reaction says about myself. Usually I feel that I'm as wide-eyed as I've ever been when it comes to movies. Like, to a fault almost. I feel like I'm too easily won over by films, as long as they cater to some nerdy passion of mine. And passions don't come much nerdier than stop-motion. Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox? Loved them. It helps, of course, that those two were just great movies, period.

Maybe that's it. Maybe their primitive technical qualities really have nothing to do with why Santa Claus is Comin' to Town and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger seem so creaky and old hat to me now, it's the storytelling. There's a difference between something that appeals to your inner child and something that's just infantile. Sometimes I think I'm oblivious to that difference, but I guess I'm not.*

I was so enchanted by Santa Claus is Comin' To Town and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger as a young kid but I can't help but regard them as corny now and that's a heartbreaker - a reminder of how much time has gone by and how I look at the world with much older eyes now, prone to rolling. But my son liked them just fine, and that's what counts. I just hope we'll be equally dazzled by Tron: Legacy.

*Individual cases may vary.

Popcorn For Thanksgiving

To my fellow US citizens: as you prepare to stuff yourselves at dinner tables across the country tomorrow in celebration of the Thanksgiving holiday, I suggest that as you feast on turkey that you also leave some room for Popcorn.

Popcorn, a funky, B-movie adoring slasher pic from 1991, is one of those movies that was first discovered by so many fans on VHS that it tends to be forgotten that it played in theaters but it definitely did as I saw it on its opening weekend and liked it immediately. Prior to Popcorn's release, late night TV was deluged with commercials like this:



Upon hitting theaters on February 1st, 1991, Popcorn was fated to be overshadowed at the box office by one of the greatest genre films of the decade, The Silence of the Lambs, which arrived just two weeks later on February 14. Of course, Popcorn was never going to be a blockbuster - regardless of whatever competition it faced - but it looked especially puny next to the high-caliber frights of Silence. Silence was A-class all the way while Popcorn represented horror at its most B-level, right down to their leading ladies. Unlike Jodie Foster, Popcorn star Jill Schoelen - one of the last of the '80s Scream Queens, having starred in The Stepfather (1987) and The Phantom of the Opera (1989) - was a long way from Oscar gold.

But B-movies and their players have their own immortality and Popcorn has steadily built a fanbase over the years. Schoelen stars as Maggie, a film student haunted by fragmented dreams who comes to believe that Laynard Gates, a Manson-esque cult leader who attempted to burn his followers alive, is stalking her inside the old movie house where her class is hosting an all-night horror marathon. As in her other genre efforts, Schoelen makes a game, appealing heroine and the supporting cast has more personality than the average slasher ensemble.

This is likely due to the fact that, as opposed to the slasher films of the early '80s which had usually starred unknowns, new to acting, Popcorn's cast were all seasoned performers. Tom Villard (One Crazy Summer) was pushing forty when he played Toby, and the rest of the young cast - Ivette Soler (now a garden designer and consultant known as The Germinatrix) as Joanie, Malcolm Danare ("Moochie" from Christine) as the wheelchair-bound Bud, and Kelly Jo Minter (Summer School, The People Under The Stairs) as Cheryl - were all in their mid-to-late twenties and had many credits to their names. All were able to make their slightly written Popcorn roles seem a little fuller than they are.

And in the tradition of classic '80s slashers, Popcorn also included some old-school pros in its cast. Following in the footsteps of Donald Pleasence (Halloween), Glenn Ford (Happy Birthday to Me), Leslie Nelson (Prom Night), and Vera Miles (The Dorm That Dripped Blood), Tony Roberts (Annie Hall), Dee Wallace Stone (The Howling), and Ray Walston (Fast Times At Ridgemont High) joined Popcorn's young performers.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with Popcorn is that it isn't scary, something that's never good for a horror film. But Popcorn's affectionately observed mock movies, like The Amazing Electrified Man (featuring Bruce Glover) and Mosquito, are dead-on in every detail and the film's wittily conceived slasher scenes, which make lethal use of William Castle-style gimmickry, are worth a chuckle (in the annals of horror cinema, only Popcorn has a character speared by a giant prop mosquito).

Popcorn likely would've been a far better film had Alan Ormsby and Bob Clark, the duo responsible for '70s classics like Deathdream, had stayed with the production in their respective roles of writer/director (replaced during filming by the producers by Mark Herrier, the faux films are all that's left of Ormsby's work, but they show how key his contributions were) and writer and associate producer (Clark had his name taken off Popcorn's credits) but unfortunately we'll never know.

Currently, an effort is underway to not only reissue Popcorn on DVD (until that happens, I'll continue to closely guard my copy) but to also film a retro-documentary as well (check out their production blog here). As all the principal players involved in the film - save sadly for Tom Villard, who passed away in 1994, and Bob Clark, who was killed in a car accident in 2007 - are still alive and well, I hope it happens. In the meantime, check out this recent interview with Jill Schoelen at Late Night Classics. Popcorn may never have the kind of following that other horror films of similar vintage have garnered, but, like its hot, buttered namesake, it's still tasty company for movie fans.

The Next Big Thing?

Usually I'd wait until the end of the year to start talking about next year's films but 2010 is coming to such a dull end, with Black Swan being the only film left to look forward to, that we might as well pretend that this year is already over. Sound good to you?

I wouldn't say the genre is in a rut right now - there's been far drier periods than this (you can't say horror is flagging when there's a grisly zombie show on TV that's killing in the ratings) - but it's definitely in transition mode. Found-footage films are continuing to do ok, with The Last Exorcist and Paranormal Activity 2 being the most recent examples, but I think the studios rightly sense the public has a limited appetite for that sub-genre so there won't be a flood of copycats anytime soon. The remake trend has cooled off some, just because most of the "A" titles, like Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, have already been burned through and the only fear franchise that's on its way up now is Paranormal Activity. At this point, we're waiting for The Next Big Thing to kick off a new cycle and define horror in this decade. Will it happen in 2011?

I don't know - but these are the films I'm most looking forward to next year:

11-11-11

I have no interest in director Darren Lynn Bousman's upcoming remake of Mother's Day. I never cared at all for the ugly, unpleasant original and I think I'll be disliking the remake as well. 11-11-11 has me interested, though. It's based on some hokey numerology nonsense but I'm curious to see how Bousman does with something that's in a more cosmic or supernatural vein.

Apollo 18

I haven't gotten tired of the found-footage genre yet and anything involving government conspiracies and creepy shit about space exploration is all right with me.

The Apparition

I'm all for a good ghost story and I hope that's what this ends up being. I've liked most of Dark Castle's output but outside of Orphan (2009), they've stumbled a little lately and I'd love to see The Apparition be a return to the fun spookshows that got them started.

Area 51

Oren Peli's follow-up to Paranormal Activity has been kept under tight wraps but based on how well Paranormal Activity 2 came together under his guidance, I'm thinking that Peli didn't just have a fluke with his first film and that he can keep delivering the goods. We're overdue for a really scary alien movie so I hope this won't disappoint. On a side note, does anyone remember Hangar 18?

Battle: Los Angeles

If nothing else, we're in for some tasty destruction. The trailers alone eat Skyline for breakfast.

The Cabin in the Woods

I'm going to be optimistic and hope that MGM's troubles will be resolved enough by next year to get Cabin in the Woods into theaters. I just wish they hadn't done the whole post-conversion 3-D thing but whatever.

Contagion

This Steven Soderbergh-directed tale of the efforts of an all-star cast (including Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law) to stop the spread of a lethal virus is being described as an action-thriller but for me, deadly, airborne diseases and epidemic shit always nudges things into the horror realm. Germs are friggin' scary - is there anyone who read The Stand who doesn't think of 'Captain Trips' every time they have a cold? I thought not. And I think this is in 3-D, too - so maybe characters in Contagion will do a lot of sneezing into the camera.

The Darkest Hour

Hey, more aliens! This story of a group of young people who find themselves in the middle of an extraterrestrial invasion of Russia is director Chris Gorak's follow-up to the acclaimed Right At Your Door (2006) so hopefully this will be another strong, scary effort.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

As with Cabin in the Woods, I'm optimistic that this film's studio problems will get resolved and this Guillermo del Toro-produced remake will hit theaters next year.

Dibbuk Box

This is a Ghost House production, which is seldom a sign of quality, but after seven years of Saw, I'm supportive of any and all films that get supernatural frights back into theaters for the Halloween season.

Dream House

When a director known for more prestigious fare like Jim Sheridan (In the Name of the Father) tackles a genre pic, it's usually an occasion to schedule a nap but the thought of Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz, and Naomi Watts starring in a haunted house movie is reason enough for me to be excited.

Drive Angry 3-D

I didn't even know that Nicolas Cage's character was someone that had broken out of Hell until I saw Drive Angry's trailer. I thought he was just supposed to be some angry dude. Once I knew that this movie was steeped in the supernatural, I was all in. Although, to be honest I was already excited for Drive Angry as I really liked what writer Todd Farmer and director Patrick Lussier did with their remake of My Bloody Valentine. Here's hoping they can get a good winning streak going - and keep it going at least through their Hellrasier remake.

Final Destination 5

I guess some people - ok, a lot of people - consider this series to be a big joke but if it's a joke, it's the kind of joke that appeals to me. I love that we're five films in now and it's still always about nothing more than setting up the next kill. And I think it's smart that the producers haven't made the mistake yet of trying to develop a bigger mythology for the series. To me, that would be the real kiss of death.

Fright Night

The original Fright Night has charm to spare and I don't see how this remake can compete in that regard - especially when the character of Peter Vincent is now a Las Vegas magician rather than a former actor turned washed-up horror host. But, I'm still hoping for a fun vampire movie out of this.

Insidious

Based on the early reviews for Insidious, the Saw team of director James Wan and writer/actor Leigh Whannell might have another giant genre hit with this ghost story. Saw was something I could never get behind but this - this sounds really cool.

Paranormal Activity 3

I would've bet money that PA 2 was going to do a Blair Witch 2-style belly-flop but not only did it do huge business, the movie itself was pretty solid. At the very least, it didn't shit all over what made the first movie great. So while I'm skeptical about the chances of a third film being good, the first sequel has taught me to give 3 the benefit of the doubt.

The Raven

I might be more stoked for this than for any other horror flick next year. It's such a daffy concept - Edgar Allan Poe spending his final days on Earth helping to hunt a serial killer who murders according Poe's own writings - that I'm already in love with this movie. If it ends up being smart, great. If it's completely ridiculous, it's still good. Director James Mc Teigue hasn't had a miss with me yet - I loved V For Vendetta and mostly loved Ninja Assassin - so I'm betting he'll go three for three with this one.

Red State

Kevin Smith has fallen on kind-of hard times lately so maybe this detour into horror will get him some favorable attention. It would've been easy for Smith to go the snarky, ironic Scream-style slasher route if he just wanted to cash in on the genre so the fact that he's going for something more serious here makes me hope it pays off for him.

Rise of the Apes

It's science fiction, yeah, but the Apes movie have always had a strong horror vibe with me. The first two Apes movies, in particular, scared the shit out of me as a kid. And the later, more revolutionary-minded entries, like Escape, Conquest and Battle were disturbing in their own way. Rise of the Apes is reportedly more of a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and that's fine with me. I just hope they don't spare the ape-anger at all. If you're going to go ape, you've got to go ape all the way.

The Rite

Exorcism movies will never go away, even if none of them ever achieve a tenth of the power or success of The Exorcist. This latest entry in the sub-genre looks pretty middle-of-the-road but I thought director Mikael Håfström did a solid job with the King adaptation 1408 so maybe this'll be good stuff, too. And I figure a movie with Anthony Hopkins taking on the devil can't be all bad.

Scream 4

I was more hopeful about this movie before I saw Wes Craven's latest, My Soul To Take. That movie got me real worried. But if the Scream 4 script is strong, I don't see Craven dropping the ball. I'm not the biggest Scream fan - not much of a fan at all, really - but I'd like to see this be a satisfying comeback for the series rather than a case of they should've left well enough alone.

Straw Dogs

A remake of the notorious Sam Peckinpah thriller doesn't seem like such a smart move but I'm still curious to see what was lost and gained in the process.

Super 8

This Spielberg-produced, J.J. Abrams-written and directed alien movie - seriously, what is up with all the alien movies next year? - has top-secret written all over it but just going by the teaser, I'm betting there's something for horror fans to grab onto here.

The Thing

I wish this hadn't gotten pulled from its release date but I'm still confident that this'll prove to be a cool prequel to the Carpenter classic. I would be a lot more down on this project but Strike Entertainment has a solid track record with films like Slither, Children of Men and the Dawn of the Dead remake so I feel like there's a better-than-average chance of this being good. I'm just curious whether all the talk about the FX staying largely practical will turn out to be true.

Undying

Any time Kurt Russell does a genre film, it's an automatic event in my book. I'm not sure how dark this supernatural thriller about a private detective who finds himself in a case crossing between the worlds of life and death is going to be but I'm hoping it'll be a real moody, noir-ish affair. On the troubling side, filming on Undying was initally said to begin this fall but I haven't read anything new on it lately - hopefully the project isn't stalled out. If it has, though, maybe John Carpenter can get in there and start the ball rolling again. At least one more Carpenter/Russell collaboration isn't too much to ask for, is it?

If not in 2011, then soon, please.

A Serbian Film: Is A Movie Dangerous If No One Watches It?

A common complaint among horror buffs is that the genre became too placid after the rip-roarin' heyday of the early '80s. But a proliferation of PG-13 horror films aside, I don't quite agree that the genre has been watered down. Dumbed down, for sure. Watered down, not so much. If we're just talking about gore, at one time movies as graphic and brutal as Piranha or Saw 3-D would've been cause for public outrage and sure as Hell wouldn't have been able to score R-ratings. Now, neither the public or the MPAA blinks an eye. The tolerance level for violence is so jacked up now that shocking regular movie goers is difficult (although it can still happen - look at the reaction to 127 Hours' grisly amputation scene) and shocking horror buffs is well-nigh impossible. One film that's gone the extra mile to try, though, is A Serbian Film.

Ever since its first public showing this past March at the South by Southwest film festival, A Serbian Film has been singled out as the biggest celluloid atrocity to come along in, well, ever. That the film boasts excellent technical credits is universally agreed on. Whether that makes it art or not is another consideration. I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on the film itself but just knowing that it's out there raises a question in my mind - is a movie dangerous if no one watches it?

Some people regard A Serbian Film as a sign of the horror genre setting up shop in taboo territory once again but yet if this film is only sought out by the most dedicated purveyors of sick cinema, then it seems like a harmless exercise. Despite the fact that its getting a US release next year (courtesy of Invincible Pictures), even among horror fans, A Serbian Film is only going to get so far. If you're unfamiliar with what A Serbian Film is actually about, take a look at its Wikipedia entry and ask yourself how much you really want to see this movie. I'm guessing probably not so much. And even if you do, it'll only be for the sake of boosting your horror cred.

To the rest of the world, who generally watches movies for entertainment rather than punishment, it will be as if A Serbian Film never existed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been made but it does make me wonder what the future of extreme horror will be. Recently, both Hatchet II and the I Spit On Your Grave remake were released unrated and barely made a ripple. Hatchet II was pulled from theaters before its opening weekend was over, an action on the part of AMC Theaters that seemed motivated by audience indifference more than political pressure from the MPAA, while I Spit On Your Grave's limited theatrical run passed without incident. Both films got plenty of good notices in the horror press but in both cases, there wasn't a big turn-out. Some claim that these are the kind of movies that hardcore horror fans are craving but I think the box office performances of these films says otherwise.

Without the mystique that still surrounds the exploitation cinema of the '70s and '80s, films like I Spit On Your Grave '10 can't help but come up empty-handed. If I'm in the mood for a hardcore exploitation film, I'd rather just watch the old stuff. Those movies have a vibe, a natural authenticity, that you just can't fake. I've heard that the new ISOYG has better acting and better production values and so on but that isn't a selling point to me. I think if you have the kind of resources to make a really good movie, you should go do that and not remake ISOYG.

I've never been a fan of the original ISOYG but I've always given it a pass because writer/director Meir Zarchi claimed he made the film in response to a real-life incident where he came across a woman (in NYC's Central Park, I believe) who had just been raped and ISOYG reflected his anger with not only the abuse this woman suffered but also towards the indifferent treatment she received from the authorities when he brought her to a nearby police station. Whether Zarchi was truly making a feminist statement with his film, I don't know. But at least there was a personal motivation behind it. The motivation behind the remake was just to exploit a semi-well known title, which makes it far more unseemly than the original in my eyes.

In its favor, A Serbian Film is purported to have something bigger on its mind other than just cashing in on grindhouse memories. Writer/director Srđan Spasojević has described his film's atrocities as being motivated by the treatment of the Serbian people by its government. This seems like a pretty thin justification for depicting the rape of a newborn baby but hey, I've never lived in Serbia so I'll have to give Spasojević the benefit of the doubt here.

Whatever the motivations were behind A Serbian Film, though - whether the movie is a legitimate political cry of anger or just sick for its own sake - its subject matter will cause it to remain little more than a curiosity, seen only by a small pocket of horror fans. When the most common statement from those who've seen it is that they really, really wished they hadn't, it doesn't seem worth the bragging rights to follow in their footsteps.

With the recent news that the US remake of Martyrs is going to be given a "glimmer of hope," though, perhaps a more palatable version of A Serbian Film is bound to happen, too. Fans of the original, of course, would be up in arms, claiming that people need to see the original. But, honestly, isn't life too short for that? If Spasojević really wanted to call people's attention to the injustices perpetrated by his government, a documentary might've been a better idea. As a horror movie, A Serbian Film is too easy to choose to ignore.

Behold, The Bears!

One of my favorite online destinations over the past few months has been A Thriller A Day, a blog dedicated to reviewing each and every episode of the 60's anthology classic Thriller. I haven't been able to keep up with watching all the episodes but I have followed every blog entry and the accompanying comments, which are just as informative and entertaining as the main posts - thanks to the invaluable input of such knowledgeable types as Gary Gerani, Tom Weaver, and Tim Lucas and to the always genial tone of the discussion, even when it comes to disagreements over sacred cows like "Pigeons from Hell."

Masterminded by Peter Enfantino and John Scoleri, ATAD is something of an anomaly in the internet world - smart, free of snarkiness, and open to contrary opinions. I'd become so attached to ATAD, I was dreading its end - and not just because the end-run of Thrillers had a notorious reputation of being a poor conclusion to the series (a reputation that Enfantino and Scoleri happily found to be only semi-true).

But with all 67 episodes of Thriller now behind them, it's time for Enfantino and Scoleri to move on. The good news is they're moving on to another anthology classic. Beginning the first of next year, Enfantino and Scoleri will be taking on The Outer Limits. Enfantino and Scoleri will be taking a slightly less work heavy approach this time around, reviewing episodes five days a week rather than seven. They'll be joined in their exploration of OL's 49 episode run by David J. Schow, author of The Outer Limits Companion.

I'm really looking forward to this. The Outer Limits is more familiar ground to me than Thriller but I have yet to watch every single episode. Not long ago, I treated myself to the box set in anticipation of one day diving into the entire series. I haven't gotten around to it yet but We Are Controlling Transmission is the perfect incentive to do so. With less duds in its roster than Thriller, following The Outer Limits and its trademark "bears" - the monsters that the series was famous for - with Enfantino, Scoleri, Schow, and co. ought to be a great adventure, full of awe and mystery.

Kong For Christmas

By the time the Dino De Laurentiis-produced King Kong remake was released on December 17th, 1976, I was just old enough to be hip to the importance of directors when it came to making movies. Thanks to the massive ballyhoo surrounding Kong's release, De Laurentiis was the first producer I became aware of.

Unfortunately, my disappointment with Kong caused me to forever associate De Laurentiis' name - unfairly, if fondly - with schlock. It didn't help that besides Kong, he produced much more schlock over the years - including Orca (1977), Flash Gordon (1980), and King Kong Lives (1986). It was also hard to take De Laurenttis too seriously when in interviews, many of those who worked with De Laurentiis, like Sam Raimi and Stephen King, would mercilessly - if affectionately - parody the producer's thick Italian accent. De Laurentiis himself didn't help his own cause much with proclamations like the one he made on behalf of his Kong: "When Jaws dies, nobody cries. When Kong dies, they all cry."

During his career, De Laurentiis shepherded many outstanding genre films into existence, like Danger: Diabolik (1967), Barbarella (1968), Conan the Barbarian (1980), Blue Velvet (1986), Manhunter (1986), and Evil Dead 2 (1987) but that counterbalance of cheese was never far away. In the mid-'80s it was especially easy to find De Laurentiis exasperating as - The Dead Zone (1983) aside - he seemed bent on annihilating Stephen King's name with his productions of Firestarter (1984), Cat's Eye (1985), Silver Bullet (1985), and most damaging of all, King's sole directorial outing, Maximum Overdrive (1986).

Before he dragged down King (with King abetting De Laurentiis every step of the way), he worked over Kong real hard. Before King Kong came out, of course, I was as wide-eyed as can be about it. Back then, the idea of a big scale fantasy/horror film was still on the novel side. Yeah, there had been enormous hits like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), The Exorcist (1973), Jaws (1975) and the Planet of the Apes films but genre films, by and large, were still B-movie material. They weren't the tentpole events that we take for granted today (when the summer movie seasons started to become more and more genre-orientated in the late '70s/early '80s, it was mind-blowing to me). When Peter Jackson did his remake of Kong in 2005, it was a big deal but not that big a deal. It just couldn't seem as newsworthy as the '76 version did.

In '76, Kong was it. That was the movie I had to see. I was into all the merchandise. I had the glasses, a bad-ass cereal bowl (because nothing goes together like Corn Flakes and Kong), you name it.



The US poster, depicting Kong straddling the World Trade Towers, hung above my bed for years, even long after I knew the movie wasn't so good. I saw King Kong in a single screen movie house located in Lancaster, New Hampshire shortly after the film had opened. I was on a family visit to my grandparents for Christmas and my mother knew there was no way I'd be able to wait a few days until we got back to Massachusetts to see Kong.

I loved that old-style movie palace (seeing movies there was always the highlight of my Lancaster visits) but my impressions of Kong weren't good. Where the original was timeless, the new version just seemed too contemporary. Given my age, I have to say I'm kind of surprised that I didn't like it. Seven-year-olds aren't real discerning viewers, and were even less so back then. But I know that I found Jessica Lange really grating and despite Rick Baker's best efforts, Kong himself just didn't look as magical as he had in the original. Outside of all that, though, the bottom line is that nothing in the movie looked quite as incredible as what the posters had promised.

I mean, I still get a smile on my face when I look at this:




Come on, how could anyone not want to see that movie?

Films like Star Wars (1977) and Superman: The Movie (1978) came along over the next year or two and delivered in a way that Kong didn't even come close to but because Kong was the first big genre movie that I was old enough to be aware of ahead of its release and to really look forward to, I'll always have a special affection for it.

I'll tell you, when Peter Jackson did his remake of King Kong (2005) he was right to do it as a period piece - he just picked the wrong period. He shouldn't have bothered trying to bring Kong back to the '30s, where he had already been portrayed to perfection, but back to the '70s where some coolness was still left to be found. Seriously, look at the Japanese poster below, and tell me that you wouldn't have wanted Jackson to make a film that replicated this kind of imagery:

It never would've happened, of course, but I'll always maintain that would've been the better way to go. It might've only appealed to an audience of one but I promise I would've really appreciated the hell out of it! And who knows, with one of the biggest trends of the last decade being remakes of genre films of the '70s - Texas Chain Saw, The Hills Have Eyes, The Amityville Horror, Last House on the Left - maybe a remake of the '70s Kong would've actually turned out great.

Some might've considered it in poor taste to bring back the World Trade Towers just for the sake of having a giant monkey climb them - like, in really poor taste - but for others, it might've simply taken them back to a better time.

I know that's how I feel when I look back on Kong '76. It wasn't a great movie, no, but it was part of a great time. Hearing the news of De Laurentiis' passing this week at age 91 made me miss those days all over again.

If You're Dead And You Know It, Clap Your Hands

In 1985, my buddy and I were too young by a year or two to see the unrated Day of the Dead but our moms convinced the theater personnel to let us in unattended. As we sat in that theater and saw the famous 'tongue' zombie shamble into the frame, we knew we were in for a film made strictly for the strong of stomach.

George Romero has affectionately called Day's devoted cult of followers "trolls" and that's an apt description for all old-school zombie fans - not just Day devotees. Once upon a time, zombie cinema held a gnarly, subterranean appeal. Even the comical zombie pics, like 1985's Return of the Living Dead, had an underground edge (a punk edge, in that film's case). Even though Michael Jackson did a zombie dance routine in the biggest music video of all time, real zombies were found on the fringe.

Up until, well, now, the idea of approximating the signature splatter of the Romero Dead films on TV would've been considered impossible but the premiere episode of The Walking Dead got away with showing sights comparable to what Tom Savini fought tooth and nail to keep with a R-rating in his 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead and some of the ghastliness even broached Day of the Dead territory. Courtesy of KNB's Greg Nicotero (a Day of the Dead vet), we saw a rotted zombie with its lower half gone crawling across the ground dragging its entrails. We saw a horse ripped open by a zombie horde and its intestines pulled out. We saw multiple gunshots to the head. And it was all right there on American Movie Classics.

Of course, The Walking Dead is about more than gore (just as Romero's films have always been). With Oscar-winning writer/director Frank Darabont running the show, this is prestige television - the kind of series that will probably win Emmys and all that. On a strictly technical level, it's good. Acting, writing, directing, music, special effects - it's all well above average. But something about the comic has bothered me from the start and it's hard not to carry that over to how I feel about the show. I don't see the comic as being innovative or imaginative. Or even the least bit original. To me, it's like Romero paved the highway and Kirkman is just driving on it.

Romero's latest films regularly get dumped on but while I think some of the criticism is warranted, I like the fact that Romero is still being quirky with his zombies. He's bending the familiar rules, tweaking convention. He could be giving the fans exactly what they want (and be getting a lot less grief) but I get the feeling that's boring to him. He's just not that calculating while Kirkman, I get the impression, is.

Romero approaches his zombie films as a way to keep telling stories that interest him (even if they might not interest anyone else) while Kirkman is shrewdly shepherding a franchise. That's not to say that Kirkman doesn't care about the stories he's telling but whatever paths The Walking Dead might take, whether it goes for ten more issues or two hundred, I expect it's always going to stick to pretty conventional developments (for instance, I bet it didn't take the book long to make the Romero-esque point that people are more of a threat to each other than the zombies are).

I'd be more ok with The Walking Dead if it had just been a miniseries, that Kirkman wanted to get his fanboy rocks off by playing in that sand box and then move on to something more original. But no, this is going to be his cash cow for a long time to come. I don't go into Hot Topic but I'm guessing if there isn't Walking Dead merchandise for sale there yet, there will be. It's also inevitable that there'll be a Walking Dead feature film at some point. And in the meantime, Romero will still be making zombie movies for peanuts - that is if he's still making movies at all.

That Darabont can shape Kirkman's work into good television is likely. So far, the reaction to The Walking Dead has been almost unanimously positive. That's fair. I think there were several moments to savor in the premiere episode. It's a well-produced zombie show that treats the genre seriously so there's no reason not to approve of it, even celebrate it. But I reserve the right to be a troll instead.