That feather totally looks like a neck tie.

You can file this under a sub class of movie reviews: stuff my wife makes me watch. That’s hardly ever a bad thing – she’s got some great taste when it comes to movies. Of course, saying that a movie staring the man with charisma that can punch you through a TV screen, Yul Brynner, is a good movie is like saying peanut M & M’s are great M & M’s; you’d have to be allergic to awesome to hate them. I’d never heard of Kings of the Sun before my nicer smelling half told me about it. So placing all my faith in Yul and 3/4 of a bottle of cheap-ass Yellow Tail Merlot, I prepared to be entertained.

Not trying to be smart with the title, Kings of the Sun is actually about a pair of kings.¬† Specifically, our tale starts off with Balam, very recent heir to the thrown of the Mayan civilization.¬† This is because the historically, very real Hunac Ceel killed his father and is in the process of invading Chichen Itza to do the same to him.¬† Balam’s advisers recommend that they retreat to the coast and sail across the sea (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico) to the land promised to him by his father so that they can rebuild their forces over time, come back, and beat the shit out of Hunac.

As luck would have it, they come across some of their constituency in the form of a coastal town.¬† There’s some hubbub with the these locals, what with the gov’ment coming down telling them to sail with them n’ all but that’s worked out.¬† Ixchel, the whitest Mayan chick ever is introduced and of course, exchanges the ever so tentative “I want to put my¬† ‘p’ in your ‘v’” looks to each other that we all know and love.¬† They blindly set sail across the sea on the first oceanic voyage to never cause a sunburn, let alone a tan and soon find themselves setting up shop in the unnamed Mississippi River Valley with a wealth of natural resources at there disposal.¬† This is all pretty awesome for them except…

This is Black Eagle's turf. ...Okay, that's the King of Siam but he's giving off the same vibe.

A group of nomadic Native Americans are currently chilling out around this area and Black Eagle ain’t having ‘em.¬† And we’re on our way…

This movie feels a little odd.¬† On the one hand, there’s a great deal of action, none of it terribly impressive by today’s standards but like the WNBA, it’s got good fundamentals.¬† The scenes are more impressive in terms of what they’re trying to accomplish.¬† When watching a Braveheart‘s worth of extras piling up on the screen followed by sword play, I couldn’t help but feel I was watching a transition from Hollywood’s old guard representing the swashbuckling and fun duels from days of old to something bordering more realistic.¬† It’s safe to say that the one on one fights, particularly those involving Brynner and Chakiris, are too easy to mute and set some porn music to but still, there are some brutal moments.¬† But the fighting is hardly what this movie focuses on.

Kings of the Sun is primarily a character and dialogue driven flick.¬† While it wears most of its messages on its sleeve, the performances and some intense lighting effects deliver them with power and meaning.¬† George Chakiris’s Balam has an almost permanent crown of self doubt sitting on his head, heavy and burdensome, most of it being telegraphed simply from his facade of new found kingly responsibility.¬† His people are barely surviving, they are in a new land, some question his authority, is he doing the right thing?¬† You know he’s thinking all these things and rarely mentions them verbally.

Yes. She's "Mayan". Suspend your disbelief.

The only thing that gives him the slightest amount of relief from these worries is the one person who offers a completely different set of worries, Ixchel (Shirley Ann Field).¬† She comes across as a bit of an item to be won though, that’s only through the perspective of her two main suitors.¬† Much like Chakiris, Field’s face hurts in the most subtle of ways with some very unpleasant decisions she has to make and fortunately, it’s not a simply matter of picking which dude she’d like to bone; there’s a crisis of faith involved.

And that’s why Kings of the Sun is amazeballs.¬† It’s not about playing a cinematic version of Civilization – it’s a full on culture war where religious faith is called into question, its archaic and alien rites put to the test with one man who sees his world plainly.¬† As Black Eagle, Yul Brynner is the poster boy for the idiom “when in Rome”.¬† The Mayans attempts to placate their gods in an effort to receive things that the land already provides for them without their approval bugs the shit out of him.¬† None the less, he is exceedingly willing to try and understand them despite some unmentionable plot developments.¬† Brynner is up to his usual snuff which is comprised of an excitingly intense and fun form of scenery chewing paired with quiet, commanding regality.¬† And if that weren’t enough, he accomplishes the perfect “and not a single fuck was given that day” pimp walk somewhere in there.¬† You’ll know it when you see it.

There are particular scenes with Brynner where the director, J. Lee Thompson (Guns of the Navarone, Cape Fear) uses the absence of light to render a chilling effect.¬† I’m sincerely not a person who usually notices the utilization of such cinematic techniques so when a particular scene draped shadows across Brynner, I literally found myself¬† “oh shiiiiiit” as legitimate reaction to the severity of the scene.¬† Noticing the effect didn’t pull me out of the scene; it only made me appreciate it that much more.

It might even be a too slow for most, especially if you aren’t immediately compelled by the premise of a Mayan culture taking root in North America at a time when Europe was the dunce of the world or if aren’t a Yul Brynner mark like everybody else on the planet but Kings of the Sun is great gem of a movie.¬† Yes, there are some shortcomings but nearly every single one of them can be attributed to the times during which it was filmed.¬† If anything, get drunk and shout out the Pharaoh’s quotes from The Ten Commandments, we had a blast doing that.¬† But the fact that the movie could shut us up during some really great scenes is yet another reason why Kings of the Sun is approved and recommended.

Yes, that is a bamboo shoot under his ass.

Like any red-blooded American dude, I enjoy watching a good ass kicking.¬† However, Kung Fu movies are a special treat; they are a form of visual poetry, a testament to the potential of human kinesiology and served up with a healthy dose of kitsch from our nation’s point of view.¬† And if a good story were to accompany said action, to watch a good Kung Fu movie is to be impressed in most basic of ways.¬† Ten years ago, I wouldn’t have known this movie, Drunken Master, existed.¬† I was aware of Jackie Chan and that he was the main character in a movie released here in the states as The Legend of Drunken Master but was ignorant to the fact that it was a 1994 sequel to this 1978 original.¬† I pretty much fell in love with what I now know as part 2, so Drunken Master – Drunk Monkey in the Tiger’s Eye as it’s known in Hong Kong – has to be just as good right?

Fair warning to all Kung Fu movie buffs: I’m in no way one of you.¬† I’m sure my Kung Fu movie watching resume would read something like a best sellers list or if there are any Kung Fu hipsters out there, I’d get the “I was into those before I knew they existed” trash talk but I make no apologies for my Kung Fu movie pedigree.¬† I simply like what I like from what I’ve seen.

I watched this dubbed from Netflix.¬† I’m sure this alone made this movie way more hilarious than it should’ve been but still, Drunken Master is an action comedy, one of Chan’s earliest, and I feel the dubbing brought something special to it.¬† For example, having seen the sequel first, knowing that Chan’s character’s name was “Wong Fei Hung” served only to make the dub’s “Freddie Wong” that much more funny.¬† There are similar instances of great name localization – calling Yan Ti San “Thunderleg” instead was a great move – but the comedy doesn’t derive simply from an American attempt at making the script more accessible; Drunken Master is a great example of early physical comedy.

Tea sucks.

Sticking with the dubbed version’s name, Freddie Wong is as an impressive fighter as he is a bumbling klutz of an asshole.¬† The son of a prominent Kung Fu master, the first third of the film deals with his misadventures in and around his town that include him hitting on girl only to have his mother kick his ass and him suffering punishment by his father by having to stand, balancing tea cups on his head and shoulders, knees bent, over a sharpened bamboo shoot directly under his asshole.¬† It’s interesting to note that through these two early scenes, not only are we presented physical laughs and sweet fight choreography but we get to know a well rounded character.¬† Freddie’s kind of jerk off in a lot of ways that could turn the audience away from him but we are shown early on that he has a sense of justice and even though he might shoot his mouth off while doing it, he’s not beyond standing up for the weak.¬† The comedic nature of this genre probably calls for such a juxtaposition but it still makes Freddie feel more real than any hard-assed hero with their unwavering boner of infallible character always pointing their moral compass north.¬† So yes, Freddie is very likable.

For his likability, you feel almost bad for him when his shenanigans have his father order him a year’s worth of training from his infamous uncle, So Hi (Beggar So, originally).¬† The middle third of film is Jackie Chan’s face perpetually winced in comedic pain under the sadistic weight of So Hi’s training.¬† Whether it’s the push ups that see Freddie flipping his hands palms down to palms up or water barrel balancing or the vertical tea cup sit ups, you’ll be hard pressed deciding whether to laugh or gasp in awe of his physicality; Jackie Chan is goddamn machine in this flick.¬† This is also where Freddie starts “leveling up” so to speak, with a couple of encounters with minor fighters that display some interesting and creative (Head Fu) fighting styles.

I think it’s important to note something about the fight choreography in that it’s exceptionally impressive.¬† I probably shouldn’t have been surprised considering it stars a young Jackie Chan but what was refreshing about the choreography was that it was largely dependent on the performers fighting each other as opposed to elaborate set pieces as is common practice today.¬† Not that elaborate set pieces are at all unwelcome by yours truly; it just happens to be real thrill to see these artists working with just each other in expertly conceived fight scenes.

Then there’s Thunderleg.

The final boss of this little gem is easily one of my new favorite movie villains.¬† I can only imagine what this dude sounds like in this movie’s native tongue.¬† The dub clearly makes this guy a bad ass giving him some of the best lines in terms of delivery, corniness and general assholery.¬† The performance, from a visual standpoint, by master Tae Kwon Do practitioner and actor, Hwang Jang Lee, makes large amounts of awesome explode from the screen.¬† When I wasn’t busy being impressed by cold stares, the mocking smiles, and all the little mannerisms that serve as the icing on this cake of kick ass, I was watching slack-jawed as Thunderleg demonstrated the the ability make it look as though he could dislocate his hip joints at will when serving up his kicks.¬† And the best part of all this?¬† He manages to impress with very little screen time.

There's also a Thunder 'stache.

I suppose I should tell you about how this one thing in the movie really drove me up the wall but it really didn’t do that.¬† Some of the music cues seemed oddly placed but I chalk that up to cultural differences as I’ve noticed the same thing in a few other Kung Fu movies.¬† So considering that, I’ll say there’s not a damn thing wrong with Drunken Master and if you find something wrong with it, you might be an asshole.¬† The story is simple and sweet, it’s funny both intentionally and unintentionally, the fight choreography is top notch and to say that it holds up by today’s standards would be a new, more powerful version of an understatement.¬† Like an √ºberunderstatement or something.¬† Approved and highly recommended.

Tom Selleck’s character’s name “Ramsay” is said approximately 52 times in the movie; a little more than once every two minutes.

This would indicate that not only is “Ramsay” said an inordinate amount of times, but some asshole actually sat there and counted the whole movie to see exactly the number of mentions the protagonist received. ¬†Having such a trivial factoid be known typically indicates two things about your movie-

1) We’re about to watch a genre film, in this case action/sci-fi

2) The film could be of questionable quality but there are fan boys abound nonetheless

I believe that both of these things are true for Runaway, a Tom Selleck vehicle from 1984 that was grossly overshadowed by a little film called The Terminator. There were times while watching this movie that just couldn’t believe both films released in the same year. ¬†Yes, both films have horribly synthesized soundtracks and less than optimal special effects. ¬†They also share a glimpse at the future, one apocalyptic the other modestly hopeful. ¬†And of course each film shares a commentary on whether letting machines run our world is such a good idea. ¬†But strangely, only one of these films still feels relevant 26 years later. ¬†Quite frankly, it’s not the one I’m reviewing.

Selleck plays, you can keep count here too, Ramsay. ¬†He’s what you might refer to as a police nerd. ¬†We learn from a pair of early scenes that he is an officer equipped with the skills to keep peace among the robotic community. ¬†Robots have become fully integrated into society, with one even replacing the role of Ramsay’s late wife. ¬†Occasionally though, artificial intelligence goes haywire and causes the droids to run amok. ¬†We get an interesting juxtaposition with the two scenes. ¬†One portrays a runaway corn-shucking robot (humorous), while the other finds a home-use robot held up in its home, threatening to shoot a baby. ¬†We then find out that an evil man named Luther is hell bent on creating weaponized computer chips and selling armies of robots to the world’s foremost military organizations. ¬†Then, as it were with a lot of 80s action films, things get personal!

I tried not to be too cynical in the synopsis paragraph, but this film has a bizarre structure. ¬†First of all, the two scenes I mentioned above easily amount to 20 minutes of screen time and this is prior to the storyline where Luther’s plan really gets cooking. ¬†Even more so, these scenes help to establish that a world running on robots can lead to chaos. ¬†But that argument is basically abandoned in favor of the “crazy wild-eyed dude selling secret shit to the military” plot device. ¬†I guess I was just hoping for something different based on the way things began but it’s much more of a formulaic plot than that. ¬†Editing out the first ten minutes would hardly do much to harm the overall appeal of such a movie. ¬†Hell, it might enhance it enough to balance shit out for me. ¬†But it’s not like someone’s chomping at the bit to re-edit a nearly 30 year old movie.

Gene Simmons can act like these things are a threat, but you and I know better...

Let’s talk about the robots as well. ¬†These aren’t your Terminator or humanoid-type machines. ¬†Most of them are just computer towers equipped with tank treads and hook-hands. ¬†There’s also a group of spider-like robots that spit acid. ¬†The problem is, none of these things are all that menacing. ¬†There’s a sequence towards the end of the film where Ramsay (everyone, take a shot!) is cornered on an open-air elevator by three of the spider robots. ¬†It seems like it would have been pretty easy to just drop kick them off the edge but instead he wallows around and gets acid sprayed in his face. ¬†The whole thing just seems stupid because, again, what threat can there possibly be with a four inch tall metal spider?

This is also one of those movies that I’m sure any aspiring filmmaker watches and just cringes at the thought of trying to predict the technology of the future. ¬†The film is littered with tube televisions (when’s the last time you saw one of those) and stars a dad that knows more about technology than his kid. ¬†Not that this sort of thing isn’t possible, but when your hero is having to shout to his son instructions on how to use an elevator and your movie takes place in a future where every kid can kick my ass at COD, I simply cannot suspend my disbelief enough to get wrapped up in it.

And then there’s the problem of Kirstie Alley. ¬†Now I may be biased due to the loopy Pier 1 commercials she did years back, but holy shit can I not stand some Kirstie Alley. ¬†This was one of her first movies and it’s quite clear, especially during a gag inducing strip scene, that someone was out to make her a star. ¬†Look though, she was in all three Look Who’s Talking movies! ¬†This one is a very personal preference, but I’m just not a fan of Ms. Alley’s. ¬†If you’re not that hung up on such things, you should be ok.

So what did I think? ¬†Did I like it? ¬†Sadly, this one falls just below my recommendation level. ¬†I think that if you saw it back in the 80s you might enjoy it a bit more or have some nostalgia about it. ¬†But watching it in modern times it just doesn’t cut it. ¬†It’s currently available on the Netflix Instant Queue for your viewing pleasure so you really have nothing to lose (save for 100 minutes) if you choose to watch it. ¬†If anything, it’s interesting to see what some folks thought our future held.

It feels superfluous to rehash the plot of this film but given that someone hitting this page may have never seen Nightmare or, more likely, has a skewed idea of what it’s actually about given the over exposure the series had in the 80s and 90s, I’ll go ahead and spit it out. ¬†Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) discovers that she and her friends are beginning to have the same nightmare each night- a man named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund), complete with a five bladed glove, chases them and in extremely vivid details. ¬†Then Nancy’s friend Tina has an exceptionally horrible nightmare that results in her untimely death at the hands of Freddy. ¬†Nancy learns that the dreams she shares with her friends are not just coincidental and this motivates her to uncover the truth about Freddy.

I remember the first time a friend showed me this film and he described it as director Wes Craven’s “masterpiece.” ¬†Given that Craven wrote and directed the film, I find this to be an obvious statement. ¬†The very idea was a rather original one at the time of it’s release and it’s no surprise that it spawned a full eight films plus an imminent remake. ¬†This might be a stretch but I think you could also have films like The Matrix give credit to¬†Nightmare given it established this idea of being able to die in your dreams (or in the case of The Matrix, cryostasis). ¬†It at least made this concept acceptable to a mainstream audience. ¬†A lot of people may not realize this but the whole idea was borne out of a few newspaper articles Craven found where a group of men refused to sleep due to the absolutely horrific nightmares they were having. ¬†I recall from some of the supplements on the DVD that Craven even referenced an individual hiding a coffee maker in their closet much like Nancy does in the film. ¬†When the men did eventually sleep, they were found dead. ¬†I can’t recall how public that source material was made at the time of it’s release, but if it was I’m sure it added to the legend surrounding the film. ¬†Not only that, but the very fact that Freddy can kill people only in their dreams, a time that is somewhat safe otherwise, creates an original and relatable danger for the audience.

And of course that’s just the first half really since the main thing you’re likely aware of with this film is Krueger himself. ¬†To call him iconic is something of an understatement. ¬†I’d wager that he’s the most recognizable monster from film since Dracula, Wolf Man, and Frankenstein. ¬†Hell, even my mom, who has not seen a single frame of the Nightmare films, emulates the dude when she’s totally dorking out. ¬†What’s interesting though is how different the Freddy in this film is from the character that headlines the sequels which followed. ¬†If you’re only slightly familiar with him, you probably think he’s a bit of a jokester first and a killer second. ¬†It’s very apparent that it was not always the intention, especially of the films with Craven’s involvement, to make Krueger a monster to root for. ¬†I don’t know if that decision originated from Englund or the production team on the latter films but here in the original film, while he does make a few jokes, he’s all about the killing/revenge. ¬†To put it bluntly, he’s pure evil incarnate and a huge threat to anyone involved. ¬†In the later films, not only is he a joke but at times you can almost believe that characters can reason with the guy, at least to make you chuckle, before he dispatches them accordingly.

I know this isn’t a review as much as it is me giving a proverbially hand job to one of my favorite horror films but here’s a few things I’ll critique from my latest viewing. ¬†For one, the music sounds horribly dated. ¬†Synthesized music was all the rage back in the mid-80s, with a lot of producers arguing that it would completely replace your standard orchestrated material entirely. ¬†Of course we know this never came to be but now we’re left with this Casio Keyboard sounding garbage. ¬†The theme itself is recognizable but at times it went into “porno-bad” levels.

Another thing that was a little off putting was Langenkamp’s portrayal of Nancy. ¬†No one particular scene comes to mind but there are instances in this film that call for various levels of melodrama. ¬†I understand that Nancy is supposed to show signs of being broken, especially given that she stops sleeping for several days. ¬†My concern is that while the performance may have been acceptable at the time of release, modern audiences may dismiss her as the strong female character she actually becomes. ¬†I mean, it’s a horror film so we’re kind of used to this sort of thing but still, I didn’t remember some of the line deliveries being that stilted. ¬†All of the acting is overshadowed by Englund’s performance anyways so it’s not that big of a deal.

So there you have it- I really love this film. ¬†I haven’t made a list, but I’m sure this film would be in my top 10 horror films of all time. ¬†The version I watched was a DVD release from around four years ago (labeled Infinifilm or some form of marketing from New Line). ¬†The video and audio were great considering it’s standard def and there are hordes of special features I didn’t get to. ¬†That said, New Line/Warner has released a Blu-ray version of the film, which I can only imagine is superior. ¬†Bottom line- any way possible, if you’re a horror fan you should check this flick out.

The film opens during an on stage demonstration by a man who “learns 50 facts a day” and can answer any question thrown his way. ¬†After a few erroneous questions that are either too personal or about the future, a man asks Mr. Memory to rattle off the distance between Winnepeg and Montreal. ¬†After answering effortlessly, a scuffle ensues in the audience and shots ring out. ¬†The building is evacuated and it’s here that we meet our hero, Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) as he helps a distraught Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) to her feet. ¬†She then asks Hannay back to her apartment, to which he somewhat reluctantly agrees. ¬†Once there. Smith reveals that she is a spy and casually drops the phrase “39 steps.” ¬†Later that evening while Hannay is sleeping, Smith bursts into the room and staggers to the edge of Hannay’s bed. ¬†Sadly, she dies and reveals a giant knife has been stabbed into her back. ¬†In her hands she clutches a map of Scotland with a home circled. ¬†Hannay then chooses to track down this home in search of answers for Smith’s demise.

And I’ll stop the story talk there! ¬†I will say that just due to the old fashioned way the story is told, I had to supplement my viewing with a look over the wiki page for the movie. ¬†That’s more of a knock against my inability to process older flicks than it is the film’s storytelling skills. ¬†There were actually quite a bit of things I liked here. ¬†I especially appreciated what was likely one of the earliest uses of a McGuffin technique throughout the film. ¬†The 39 Steps goes from being a throwaway piece in a conversation between two strangers to the mystery Hannay is trying to uncover throughout. ¬†It’s no surprise that this same device is famously used in a lot of Hitchcock’s work to much success.

But the biggest surprise was the camera work and trickery used to create this film.  A few times I got the sense that these guys had learned how to do wipe edits and such since there is a slight overabundance but you have to cut them some slack considering this movie was made in the early 1930s.  Probably the most impressive shot was a scene that started as a conversation in a car and then, with an invisible edit, we move to the outside of the car and see it zoom down the hillside.  These sort of shots are commonplace now but I was actually taken aback when it showed up.  Not only because it looked so good but even more since the same shot composition is used to this day.

I’ll keep it short in lieu of more Hitchcock films to come here in the Retro Review column. ¬†I liked this movie and that’s an accomplishment since I had no idea what it was about before hitting play in the Netflix Instant Queue. ¬†The version I watched looked fine for a streamed movie but did have a lot of noticeable blemishes on the transfer at the beginning. ¬†To be honest, this broken down aesthetic kind of made me enjoy the film more but I’m sure there’s a better restored version out there somewhere if you feel that would be a problem. ¬†The 39 Steps might not be a movie that floors you, but if you’re any kind of film history buff than you should check it out. ¬†And if you have Netflix with the ability to stream movies, you really have no excuse.

Quick Backstory – (not included in the movie) King Acrisius, who had only his daughter and no sons, consulted the famed oracle at Delphi for help and instead learns that the son of his only daughter would end up killing him. So, instead of killing her, he responds, in that same incredible Blofeldian way, by locking his daughter in the dungeon… forever! While imprisoned, Zeus, disguised as a shower of gold from the sky, does the do with her, and she gives birth. Acrisius of course, hears the baby crying, fears his own death, and decides to drown them both. Also not in the movie is the fact that eventually (after the events that¬†are in the movie) Perseus, having learned of his father’s encounter with the oracle, voluntarily exiles himself to the island of Thessaly. When he arrives, funerary games are being held for the former king. Perseus enters into the discus throw, where he throws the discus so far, it goes outside the playing field and cracks a spectator on the head who, as we can all predict, turns out to be his father! Back to the review!) Zeus, in retribution for the attempted murder of his own son, punishes Argos with destruction at the hands of the Kracken, a giant, merciless, deadly sea monster.

A Kraken

A Quick Note about the Kracken:
Being a big mythology buff, I was embarrassed to find out that the Kraken is not actually in Greek mythology. Who knew? Even more embarrassing is that despite my fifty-seven million books of mythology from all over the world, I learned this about the Kraken from the Blu-ray special features. The Kraken is actually Norse in origin, taking its name from the Scandanavian word Krake, meaning “something twisted.” Appearing more in oral legend than as a poetic character, it was said that the Kraken could grab the largest warships and take them to the bottom of the ocean. And as though that weren’t enough, even if the Kraken completely ignored your vessel, the whirlpool created when it quickly dived back underwater was enough to destroy any ship. It is most likely that the legends of the Kraken are based on actual sightings of Giant Squid, but it’s impossible to know every species that lives in the ocean.

So Perseus and Danae¬†are escorted by the¬†power of gods to the Isle of Seriphos, where the two live a happy, naked life together. Also not included in the film is the bit where the ruler of Seriphos comes to Danae on the beach, and demands she be his wife. Perseus is angered by the ruler’s attitude, and demands they not wed. He vows he will bring back the head of Medusa to keep them apart, and, being a Greek hero, does. This illustrates one of the beauties of mythology – the stories continue to change, so that questions like, “Why does Perseus go to kill Medusa?” become unanswerable. Alongside questions like, “Where did Batman’s Joker come from?” Stories constantly change to fit the storytellers. It’s convenient to say that Perseus is defending his mother’s honor one century, and the next it’s more convenient to say that he acts out of romantic love. Or a century or two earlier, out of heroic honor.

Mythology scholar Joseph Campbell

The rest of the story continues in true Greek form as gods become jealous of each other and take their vengeance. Ultimately, Perseus is faced with a quest fitting of a true Greek hero. He goes to speak to three blind man-eating fortune tellers, kill the evil gorgon sister Medusa, fight a … herd(?) of giant scorpions and face the disfigured Prince Calibos, not necessarily in that order. To do so he is granted a shield which is guaranteed to guard his life, a helmet which renders him invisible and a sword which is undoubtedly made of adamantium. All this in order to win the right to marry, and the affections of the Princess Andromeda.

As a movie, the story works perfectly. It follows to a T the hero cycle put forth by Joseph Campbell in his seminal work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. It’s the story of a hero and his difficulties brought to life by director Desmond Davis and writer Beverley Cross. But this movie isn’t famous because of them. It’s famous because of the genius Ray Harryhausen. Ray Harryhausen is the most celebrated stop animation master in film history. His credits include the immortal movies, Jason and the Argonauts, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, … I could go on, but you know who he is already.

Bubo: Goofball

The Goofball Strikes Back:
However, the man isn’t flawless. Bubo is a mechanical owl sent to help Perseus in his quest, and it quickly becomes the Jar-Jar of the movie. Its completely unnecessary mechanical bumbling only serves as cute fumblings to the under 9 y.o. crowd, and its only narrative responsibility is freeing the flying horse Pegasus (which I believe Perseus could have done if forced to) once it has been captured by the evil Calibos. I‚Äôve heard the character explained as the Harryhausen answer to R2D2, but through the course of the movie, is obviously closer to C3PO. Of course, Harryhausen claims the character was designed before 1977′s Star Wars debuted. Either way, it fails because it‚Äôs the goofball character. However, I can accept it knowing that it was Harryhausen‚Äôs assistant¬†Steve Archer who was responsible for most animation of the Bubo scenes. …still…¬†

Harry Hamlin as Perseus

The Actors:
Harry Hamlin is the lead, playing Perseus -¬†a career actor appearing in everything from television shows like “Batman the Animated Series” to reprising his role as Perseus in the video game “God of War II.” Princess Andromeda is played by television veteran Judi Bowker, and the rest of the cast rounds out with some of the greatest actors in the history of film:
Star of the greatest Twilight Zone ever, Burgess Meredith as Ammon
British Stage Superstar Claire Bloom as Hera
Original Bond Girl Ursula Andress as Aphrodite
Harry Potter’s Professor McGonagall as Thetis
And the man you think of when you hear the word “Shakespeare” out loud: Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus.

This is one of only two movies I own as a VHS tape, a DVD and a Blu-ray. The other is The Princess Bride. Maybe I just like fantasy. But I think it’s that I like a story that isn’t limited by the way it’s presented. I love a story that is as good today as it was a thousand years ago, and will be a thousand years from now (by the way, William Goldman’s novel, The Princess Bride was written in 1973). Clash of the Titans was made in 1981 – 2 years after Alien and 4 years after Star Wars. By comparison, it looks like Clash was made in 1961. It’s the double-edged sword of Harryhausen animation. We watch his movies for the special effects while constantly noticing how unconvincing they are. And we love them because of it. It doesn’t matter than Calibos’ tail isn’t CG’ed onto the actor’s ass. Who wants that? This is the reason we love his movies. Because they remind us of watching movies and thinking that we could make this movie in our backyard if we really wanted to. It’s that do it yourself ingenuity that makes us want to see movies like his. And Tim Burton’s.

As of right now, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland has grossed over 656 million dollars worldwide, and a Nintendo DS game is on the way. But the movie is still catching flack from Burton fans¬†and Alice fans. I say it’s because those fans don’t care whether or not the movie was good. The movie¬†was good. But that’s not the only reason¬†why we go to see his movies. We go to see Tim Burton movies to see the actors shout “Oh no!” as they’re reaching out towards the oncoming animatronic evil trees. We want to see the jumpy clay Beetlejuice-snake come off the staircase and the great miniatures he and his creative team imagine. I’ve always believed that going into any movie, that if you don’t want to be convinced, you won’t be convinced. If you want to be cool and walk out of¬†Blair Witch saying you weren’t scared, you won’t be. If you don’t think Cary Elwes and Robin Wright aren’t good enough actors to sell you on a love story, they won’t be. And if you go into a Ray Harryhausen movie expecting his jumpy claymation to do all the work for you, you’ll be disappointed. This is a movie with the power to amaze, but you have to¬†want to be amazed. If you need the actors to do all the work for you, you probably don’t like movies to begin with. But if you want to feel entertained, go with it. Watch this movie again, and remember what it was like to be amazed.

Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus

So here we are with the film I didn’t want to review, Spartacus. ¬†In the realm of gigantic movies, Spartacus must have seemed out of this world at the time of it’s release. ¬†The opening sequences in Libya, filled with seemingly thousands of slaves showcases a detail that’s covered up by digital effects in the modern era of cinema. ¬†If you look closely, you can see extras that appear miles away yet still in character. ¬†Even if you straight up hate this movie, you have to appreciate the visuals it pulls off. ¬†Even some of the incredibly weak stage sets didn’t hold back my amazement.

The story is rather old hat, especially if you’ve seen Braveheart. ¬†During ancient Roman times, Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is a slave. ¬†It’s quickly established that he is without flaws (more on that later) as he saves an old man from getting his ass beat by one of the slave handlers in the opening scenes. ¬†Spartacus is then¬†sold to a gentleman (Peter Ustinov) who runs a gladiator entertainment business. ¬†Cut to a quick montage of dudes without shirts… ¬†Oh yeah… ¬†I mean, oh they’re getting strong. ¬†And buff. ¬†And sweaty… And tan…

Whoa, where am I? ¬†Oh yeah, Spartacus. ¬†Ok so Sparty Spice starts kickin’ ass and takin’ names in his gladiatorial training. Then a couple of dudes (one named Crassus, played by Laurence Olivier) and some broads show up to be entertained. Spartacus is not quite the fighter he thought and is forced into a position where¬†his opponent¬†has to kill him.¬† However, his opponent eventually refuses and charges the spectators. ¬†This results in that dude getting dead at the hands of Crassus. ¬†Thus is the catalyst for Spartacus gettin’ all huffy and leading a mutiny against the gladiator regime and tearing ass across the country-side.

I’m poking fun, but it’s all rather impressive stuff. ¬†Overall the story is great if not a little repetitive. ¬†But quite frankly, when you’ve got a movie that’s damn near three hours long and also includes intermissions and intro/outro intermissions, you’re bound to have a few points that feel superfluous.¬† Even still, I was impressed with how well paced the whole thing was. ¬†It seemed to move at light speed. ¬†The DVD we watched totaled three hours and fourteen minutes and while we did watch it in two sittings, nothing dragged at all. ¬†There’s just not a lot of three hour epics from that time period I can say this for.

I'm not perfect, I run like a girl...

The one thing I found interesting, and according to the wiki was a constant source of contention for director Stanley Kubrick, is just how damn perfect Spartacus is as a character. ¬†For a dude that grew up via manual labor and getting his ass kicked, he sure is a benevolent being. ¬†In 1960 and within the realm of Classical Hollywood Cinema, this was perfectly acceptable. Not only that, it was pretty damn common. ¬†Nowadays, we need our characters to have flaws or even be antiheroes in almost all cases. ¬†James Bond, a character that thrived in the 60s, was a rather perfect dude unless you have a moral issue with infidelity. ¬†But look at the Daniel Craig Bond- he’s vindictive, impulsive, and damn near shattered as a human being. ¬†This is even more evident when you start discussing the Bourne films, with the titular character being literally broken before the opening credits of the first film. So for modern audiences to accept the character of Spartacus in a realistic manner is a bit of a stretch. ¬†I had no issue with it since I realized the movie comes from a time in history I can basically just read about and never fully comprehend. ¬†Perhaps you will as well.

Bottom line, the flick is a classic. ¬†Seriously, this is a really great movie and if you’re any kind of film fan, you have to check it out. ¬†We happened to watch the Criterion DVD, which looked as impressive as any of their usual offerings. ¬†I understand they have a Blu-ray coming out soon so I can only imagine it will look even grander. ¬†I would definitely recommend seeing this version as it includes the complete theatrical experience (with the intermission and such) plus it has a lot of the scenes that were restored in the early 90s, including a sequence where Anthony Hopkins had to do ADR for Laurence Olivier as the actor had passed and the original audio track was destroyed.¬† If you’ve already seen it, sound off with your thoughts below.

Retro Review is a weekly column written by Dustin and occasionally other authors from the Breach. Here we take a look at films from yesteryear. 1989 and older to be exact. At times we’ll try and analyze how the film has influenced modern cinema, discuss the quality of the current release, or just do a traditional review of the damn thing and throw it up here. As always, requests for these reviews are welcomed.

The Monster Squad has a fairly good sized number of hardcore fans out there.  Whenever and wherever it screens, it usually attracts a decent amount of nerds who no doubt loved this movie when they were kids.  Despite it aging quite a bit, The Monster Squad is still worth viewing thanks largely in part to it having a snappy (and still very dated) script co-written by Shane Black.  If you don’t recognize the name, he’s written Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Last Boyscout and the absolutely outstanding Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.  He’s got a talent for writing quick-witted characters and is the master of the one-liner.  He’s sort of a slightly dirtier David Mamet with his dialogue.   Enough of me fellating Shane Black, let’s get onto the review.

The film opens with Van Helsing (yes, The Van Helsing) ridding the world once and for all of Dracula and all his evil minions.¬†¬† He does so with an ancient amulet and a handy virgin to recite the obligatory incantation to send these dudes into Limbo.¬† Well, they pretty much fuck it all up.¬† The story picks up again 100 years later in 1987 following a group of boys who are absolutely obsessed with movie monsters.¬† Fancying themselves ‚ÄòThe Monster Squad,” they believe these supposed fictitious beasts are in fact real, and they enjoy hanging out discussing said monsters in nerdy detail.

The Monster Squad is led by Sean (Andre Gower) and consists of Horace (who goes by Fat Kid), Patrick, Rudy, Eugene and reluctantly, little sister of Sean, Phoebe.   After obtaining Abraham Van Helsings diary (yes it’s supposed to be ridiculous), Sean knows that evil is afoot after a mummy goes missing from a museum, and hearing that some guy at the police precinct where his dad works is screaming that he’s the Wolf Man.  Clearly the Monster Squad has some work to do.  After getting the token scary German neighbor to translate, Sean puts the Monster Squad to work and sets out on a quest to the find the amulet and finish what Van Helsing tried to do a century ago.  Problem is, the amulet is in a spooky house that Dracula and all his pals have taken up residence in and he’s got to get to it before they do.

The reason the absurd story works is because Shane Black doesn’t write the kids like little wholesome, brown nosing twits, nor does he portray them as completely bratty jerks.  They’re just kids.  They’re silly, they’re a little perverted and they just want to save the freakin’ world.   The creature effects by Stan Winston are also still pretty slick if a little poorly designed, Wolf Man in particular.  I wasn’t really a fan of the Wolf Man aesthetic this time around; his facial appearance was just a little odd-shaped.  Dracula was also your everyday black cape wearing pale guy, but I don’t necessarily count that as one of the creatures.  Frankenstein (played by Tom Noonan) is probably the best looking of the bunch and considering the amount of close-ups the guy gets, it’s not a surprise.  Rounding out the creature list would be The Mummy and some fish-gilled amphibious dude who I’m assuming is modeled after the Creature From the Black Lagoon although it’s never mentioned.

The complete over-the-top premise is ultimately what will draw you in here, and although it’s pretty worn in some areas, mainly the music and obviously the overall 80s feel, it’s still a neat little movie.  There’s no way a movie like this would be made the same way today and keep all of the fun quirks intact that make it enjoyable.  I picked up the 2-disc 20^th anniversary edition on DVD at Best Buy for 5 bones, so you can’t beat that.   If you’ve got a few dollars in your pocket I can totally recommend a blind buy if you like creature features and just plain silly movies.  Otherwise, just throw this thing in your Netflix queue.  It’s worth a look.

Retro Review is a weekly column written by Dustin and occasionally other authors from the Breach. Here we take a look at films from yesteryear. 1989 and older to be exact. At times we’ll try and analyze how the film has influenced modern cinema, discuss the quality of the current release, or just do a traditional review of the damn thing and throw it up here. As always, requests for these reviews are welcomed.

NORAD decides to automate the launching of nuclear weapons after a simulation demonstrates that humans are incapable of consistently making a decision to eradicate mass amounts of human life. ¬†A computer called WOPR (pronounced “Whopper”) is placed with this decision making skill. ¬†Enter David Lightman (Matthew Broderick), who is a bit of a computer whiz. ¬†After having his computer auto dial a number of phone numbers to try and reach a software company, he inadvertently dials into WOPR. ¬†Intrigued by the veil of secrecy around the phone number he’s located, he eventually finds his way into the mainframe and challenges the WOPR to a game of Global Thermonuclear War. ¬†Little does he know that he starts off a chain reaction of alerts at NORAD that quickly progresses the DEFCON numbers.

I may be the last nerd to ever see this movie so please excuse me if the synopsis above is rote to you. ¬†I’m sure the whole idea of dialing into a computer seemed like an drug induced trip in the early 80s. ¬†Hell, even nowadays we would think something of the same only because we live in a broadband world. ¬†But still it was a hoot to see Broderick whip out that giant floppy (disk) and stick it in (to run a program). ¬†All kidding aside, if you’re at all into gadgets, you owe it to yourself to check this one out. ¬†I did some research and found that the production went to great lengths to get the simple images to appear on the giant displays in the pivotal war room that the majority of the film plays out in. ¬†Computers back then couldn’t run the resolution necessary for the screens so basically they had to generate each individual frame, taking considerable amounts of time. ¬†It’s something we take for granted now because as long as you have some sort of video port on your computer, you can hook up to just about any video source available. ¬†Hell, we can just run a PowerPoint slide show that we created in five minutes and it could not only perform the same functions you see in Wargames, it would look 100 times better.

Above all of that though, the film just crescendos real nicely. ¬†Everything unfolds at a pace that feels right. ¬†By the time you’ve transformed your TV into a disco light from a dance club, you’ll be holding your breath to see the resolution. ¬†I know I mentioned it in the opening, I but I really haven’t been this excited by a bunch of flashing lights since KISS! ¬†It also helps that the hero is a nerd but he’s also really cool. ¬†And he gets the girl in the end (Ally Sheedy). Usually the characters that have as much computer skills as this dude just show up to hack something and return to their parents’ basement. ¬†This film shows that having massive amounts of computer knowledge doesn’t mean you’re just some loser running a blog about movies, TV, gaming, and music. ¬†I mean… Oh look, a new paragraph!

I hate to keep this short but I really don’t have much else to say. ¬†This is a cool flick and I highly recommend it. ¬†The Instant Queue version I watched wasn’t HD but it actually looked really good considering. ¬†Add it to your queue, even if you’ve already seen it. ¬†It’s time to see it again. ¬†No, I don’t care if you watched it yesterday, this is required. ¬†You’re welcome.

Since the review ran a little short, let’s start a discussion below. ¬†Of course you’re welcome to talk about the movie, but I’d like to know the very first computer you or your family ever owned and your favorite thing you played on it. ¬†Our first one was a second hand IBM that came with Jack Niclaus Golf. ¬†It ruled, as seen below-

The plot is damn near clich√© these days but here goes- a brother and sister are accosted by a zombie while visiting the grave of their mother. ¬†The sister, Barbra (Judith O’Dea) narrowly escapes and takes refuge in a small home in the middle of the woods. ¬†There she meets up with Ben (Duane Jones) who is able to protect her from the onslaught of walking dead just outside the home. ¬†Of course they find other survivors and team up, make plans, bicker over said plans, and turn on each other. ¬†You have to remember that this was 1968 and quite frankly, this sort of thing just wasn’t as common. ¬†Some of my research for this review found that Romero gleaned the post-apocalyptic zombie premise from Richard Matheson’s novel, I Am Legend (1954). ¬†Romero was even quoted relaying the influence the novel made on him but he insisted that while I Am Legend dealt with the post apocalypse with vampires, The Night of the Living Dead reveals the beginnings of said apocalypse. ¬†Except, of course, substituting zombies for the vampires. ¬†Matheson was reportedly pissed about all this but I guess he got over it.

The thing that stands out for a film like this is who the actual monster turns out to be- humans. ¬†I mean yes, they’re zombies but the great thing is they don’t look all that different from us and with nary a scratch, our best friends and family could turn into our enemy. ¬†It’s kind of like the next generation of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. ¬†Going into spoiler territory (really)- this all comes full circle in the end when the traveling groups of hunters end up killing a non-infected, completely innocent Ben. ¬†Not only do the people in this new world concern themselves with flesh eating zombies, they have to also convince others that they’re still “human.” ¬†It helps to reinforce the “nightmare” scenario of things but also plays off the general paranoia and lack of trust plaguing America at that point in history. ¬†1968 was a fairly peak time for the Vietnam War, with the Tet Offensive causing an uptick in US involvement. ¬† This combined with an increase to opposition to war throughout the decade caused a lot of Americans to question the “shoot first, ask questions later” tactics of the government’s military strategists. ¬†Which is paralleled by Ben’s tragic demise by a group of zombie regulators. ¬†You might think I’m stretching for a connection here, but this is the kind of stuff that’s beneath the surface in a lot of films.

Moving on then. ¬†I was pretty surprised by the level of violence in the film. ¬†Zombies are dispatched through head shots, fire, and a number of generic stabbings/chopping. ¬†Any of these would be far beyond the level of violence I’ve seen from movies of that same time period. ¬†And I think the gritty, documentary style ¬†helps to exhibit this violence in a very realistic fashion. ¬†Six years later, the same technique would be used on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) to much success. ¬†It’s funny that movies like this become iconic when they were barely made at all. ¬†Working within these limitations seem to bring out the best of the genre from this period in film history.

So as you probably guessed, I recommend you check this one out. ¬†For horror or zombie fans, it’s a must. ¬†I watched it on the Netflix Instant Queue and it was the original, black and white version. ¬†There are a number of colorized releases of the film and even a very strange 30th Anniversary release that included newly shot footage (circa 1999) by the original writer, John A. Russo. ¬†If you need your hyperbole quota filled for the year, check out this AICN review of that version in which Harry Knowles states his preference for anything but this revisioning. ¬†I have to advise that you watch the film in it’s original incarnation and in black and white. ¬†I’d suggest a blurrier and dirtier print, just for the added effect.

Retro Review is a weekly column written by Dustin and occasionally other authors from the Breach. Here we take a look at films from yesteryear. 1989 and older to be exact. At times we’ll try and analyze how the film has influenced modern cinema, discuss the quality of the current release, or just do a traditional review of the damn thing and throw it up here. As always, requests for these reviews are welcomed.