Superman Comic Book Covers of My Youth

I can still remember picking these up off the wire spinner racks - probably creasing the spines and destroying their future value! But who cares? 

What I Watched In March

I only went out to see one film last month and I'm not going to bury the lede - I liked BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE. I realize that puts me in the unenviable position of liking something that the broader popular consensus has decided is garbage, but I'm comfortable with that. I often like movies that others despise and I've never cared before so why start now. I am a little surprised by the magnitude of the outright hatred generated by this film though. Well - I'm surprised by the non-geek hatred. I'm never surprised by geek hatred. Nerd Rage is a daily fact of life in the 21st century and if you have any interest in listening you can find some group, someplace, bitching about any and all details small and large about every geeky topic you can image - and some you would be shocked to learn about. These days, of course, superhero movies are at the top of the list of bitched about geeky things. Everyone has something to complain about and, in some cases, I can agree that a case is being made that is worthy of attention. I've certainly had problems with some recent superhero films, but overall I'm very happy and outside of hideous missteps like GREEN LANTERN I've enjoyed much more about the genre than I've disliked. I think that might be because I've always had a fondness for new and different interpretations of these classic characters. I don't feel that something I love is being destroyed just because it isn't exactly the way I pictured it. I actually WANT to see different versions of these characters and I don't mind the darker tone at all.

In fact, I love seeing these decades old characters taken down less sunny paths because it allows for some dramatic tension. I have a fondness for the Christopher Reeve  Superman films but I never doubted for a second that he would prevail in the end. With this story I can't be sure of anything. Here Batman has been at his thing for twenty years with Alfred a weary veteran of his ongoing battle against crime in Gotham. That's cool! Superman is new to this hero thing and is very unsure of the correct path for his future and worries that the public sees him as more a threat than a benefit. Seeing the fear that his power causes in some people fills him with uncertainty about his place in his adopted world. That's fantastic! He's not a do-gooder 'god' - he's a man with real concerns about unintended consequences and blowback. Excellent! This is already more interesting than it needs to be in my opinion and we haven't even gotten to the plot! Or the great introduction of Wonder Woman. Why did it take this damned long to get her on the big screen?

But, fanboys gonna bitch. That's what they do. They did the same about MAN OF STEEL and they'll do it about every version of these characters that doesn't conform to their narrow vision. But I'm thrilled with this new road for these films. The older versions of these heroes still exist on my bookshelves, my DVD shelves and I can check them out any time I wish. Maybe the complainers should think of this run of stories as an Elseworlds tale like Gotham By Gaslight or Red Son. In those books writers took familiar characters and placed them in new settings or just changed their backgrounds to explore the hero's journey from a new perspective. (The Marvel version is called What If.) That's fun stuff! Change it up! Stop bitching and remember that, in their own way, these characters are timeless and are certainly strong enough to be reimagined and played with by new creators. The version you prefer - whatever that may be -  hasn't gone anywhere, so calm down. Let someone else play in the sandbox and stop trying to crap in the corner.

The List 

KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1950)- 7 (good adventure tale)

PRAY FOR DEATH (1985)- 4 (pretty bad ninja movie)

THE NEW BARBARIANS (1983)- 6 (rewatch)

CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW (1993)- 3 (terrible)

FINAL EXAM (1981) - 4 (not good but watchable)

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974) - 6 (rewatch)

THE BELLBOY (1960)- 5 (Jerry Lewis)

CORMAN'S WORLD:EXPLOITS OF A HOLLYWOOD REBEL (2011) - 8 (excellent documentary on Roger Corman)

HUNTERS OF THE GOLDEN COBRA (1982)- 5

THE KEY (1934)- 6 (love triangle set in Ireland in 1920 with William Powell, Colin Clive)

DRACULA (1958) - 9 (Hammer's classic on Blu!) (rewatch)

THE MASK (1961) - 6 (rewatch)

BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (2016) - 8

EASY COME, EASY GO (1967)- 5 (amiable, silly and colorful Elvis film)

Queen Videos from HIGHLANDER (1986)

In my earlier blog post I didn't mention one of the more amazing aspects of HIGHLANDER - the music. Although Michael Kamen wrote some of the score the most memorable parts of the film's musical legacy is the half dozen or so songs recorded for movie by Queen. I don't think their work here is the best music of their career but it is certainly incredible with these two songs showcasing the extremes of emotion they were able to touch upon for the project.

HIGHLANDER (1986) and I

I have a strange history with this film. I first saw HIGHLANDER (1986) back in 1986 in the theater on the campus of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. I was stunned that my student ID was all that was needed to go inside and see this and any other movie the school decided to show. (Yes, there is a story about what I was doing enrolled at UAB but this isn't about that. Stay focused people!) I was excited to see this new science fiction/fantasy film starring the great Sean Connery and the prospect of sword wielding and decapitations made me vibrate with energy. After the film was over I quietly exited the theater, drove home and spent the next day or so trying to decide what I thought. And 30 years later I guess I am still doing that.

I've seen the film six or seven times over the years and each time I come away slightly frustrated, mildly entertained and puzzled over the whole affair. It was one of the first movies I ever saw that I immediately knew was missing scenes. It was the only explanation possible for what I had seen. There seemed to be big chunks of the story that were just gone from what I watched - scenes that I was sure would make things clearer or at least answer some of the obvious questions the movie left dangling. So many things are just thrown at the viewer with no elaboration! We are told by Connery's character that this mutant (?) group of immortal people are occasionally born at random around the world with no understanding of what causes them to exist. We're told they can sense each other, are drawn to each other and must battle each other to the death. The only effective method of killing these immortals is by cutting off their heads so they fight each other with swords even in modern day New York City.

But - and this is the central problem at the heart of the film - The natural question of WHY is never addressed in the movie! Why must they fight? Why only removal of the head? What is this famed 'Prize' that they are battling to obtain? And why would they want it? In other words -What the hell is driving these immortals to act the way they act? Add to this the obvious question of how in the hell Connery's ancient Egyptian-by-way-of-Spain character knows this information. Or why, if he is fated to battle these other immortals he would go out of his way to inform, train and become a father figure to Christopher Lambert's character at all. (Or why an Egyptian sounds so damned Scottish in the first place - but let's not get sidetracked by the film's bizarre casting or we'll be here all night.) The film doesn't give us any answers and, indeed, seems completely unaware that anyone would ask the questions in the first place.

But the multitude of questions about this strange cult of immortals is just one of the elements that make the film so interesting to me. Director Russell Mulcahy simply cannot keep his camera still and he has it sweep and glide around every location and set in the film until I almost need Dramamine. Sometimes this stylistic choice is fun or even smoothly effective but more often than not it draws attention to itself in the worst way. "Look at me! I'm moving the camera all over the place! Here - watch me put it on a helicopter now! Wheeee!"

As I stated earlier I was confident that there were missing parts of this film and at different times over the video release history of HIGHLANDER I've thought I was going to finally see these explanatory scenes. Years ago a VHS of the 'Director's Cut' was released and I sought it out to discover several minuets of additional footage that gave more detail for side characters or added some more flashbacks - which was interesting. But the hoped for explanation of the immortals and their driving force was left just as murky as ever. Dammit. And so, I revisit the film every few years and once again am entertained enough to watch the entire thing and frustrated enough to bitch to whoever will listen - lucky you. And I know the eventual TV series offshoot built an explanation (supposedly) for all this crap but I am not interested in that. I don't care to watch hours of mediocre television for something that should have been in the freakin' original film!

So, in the end, I have to say I've finally come to terms with this film now. I watched it the other night, have mused on my reactions to it 30 years on and have realized that I kind of like the stupid thing. It's a great example of so many of the things that went wrong in 1980's cinema - flash over substance, style over coherency, an aversion to telling an actual story - and is kind of fun for that reason. I don't know if it's good but I think I like it. A little.

One day I need to write about mad sequel. Whowsa! 

HIGHLANDER (1986) Poster Art

Some of these are quite odd. 

100 RIFLES (1969)

I have a very long list of older films that I want to eventually see and this Tom Gries directed western has been there for years. I've seen a few of Gries' other work (TV movies EARTH II and HELTER SKELTER, Charles Bronson western BREAKHEART PASS) but have yet to catch his more critically lauded work (Charlton Heston western WILL PENNY). Now that I've seen 100 RIFLES I will have to make some serious effort to check out the rest of his credits because I thought this was great!

The main reason this film was on my radar was because of Rachel Welch. Yes, of course, she's a gorgeous woman but I also always find her a pleasure to watch onscreen. (Mind out of the gutter, folks!) In the late 60's and early 70's she starred in several movies and I'm especially interested in seeing the westerns as they all seem to have pretty good reputations. I'll eventually get around to BANDOLERO (1968) and HANNIE CAULDER (1971)  but I'm glad I started here. Jim Brown plays an American bounty hunter in Mexico chasing down bank robber Burt Reynolds and the $6000 he stole in Texas. Reynolds plays an American who has embraced his mother's Yaqui Indian heritage and used the money to purchase the titular 100 rifles to help the tribe fight the Federal army led by General Verdugo (the excellent Fernando Lamas). As you might expect, things do not go the way the bounty hunter would hope and soon he is chained to his target and suspected of being a collaborator with the Indians. Adding to the story is Welch as a (damned convincing) Mexican rebel on the side of the Yaqui and a cowardly railroad executive played by Dan O'Herlihy trying to keep his hands clean as he assists the General. Did I mention the film has an amazing cast?

Oh! And for fans of Euro-Trash cinema there is a featured role by the legendary Jess Franco actress Soledad Miranda in the first few minutes as a prostitute in bed with Burt! She has a solid speaking part and spends most of her screen time nude so that's another point in the movie's favor. Also turning up in a small but important role is Argentinean actor Alberto Dalbés who I've come to appreciate because of his many appearances in Spanish films such as CUT-THROATS NINE (1972), MANIC MANSION (1972), Paul Naschy's HUNCHBACK OF THE MORGUE (1973) and several of Franco's 1970's films.

I should also add that I really get a kick out of Burt Reynolds onscreen. In the 1970's he became one of the biggest stars in the world but it is evident even in his early work that he had what it takes to hold the audience's attention as a main attraction. He has a tricky character to play here and although he doesn't hit every mark perfectly he is very good and displays the abilities that would bring him huge fame very soon after this film. As good as he later became in comedic parts he is much more able in the dramatic scenes in 100 RIFLES even as he plays them with a well crafted light touch. Some of that can be attributed to the script which paints him as a man who has had to use his smile and charm to gain things in life but a lot has to be laid at the actor's feet. Reynolds had real screen charisma and here you can see it beginning to blossom. Of course, you can also see just how little real hair he had even in 1969! Those hairpieces and hats in later years must have been a separate line item on the budget of SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT films. 

BLUE EYES OF THE BROKEN DOLL (1974)

I got my start writing movie reviews years ago for the now defunct website Eccentric Cinema. I lament every day that EC is no longer around because it was a good place to find long form critiques of genre films that, regardless of the writer, always seemed to have more thought involved than the average site. Rarely was an Eccentric Cinema review simply just a review of the movie and its video presentation. There were usually some deeper ideas that got brought to the surface and often times explored in some depth. I miss having EC as an outlet and a place to gain an alternative perspective. Since it's demise I have been cleaning up and posting some of my old reviews for the site here on the blog and that is how we come to this. I wrote this review just after the BCI release of BLUE EYES OF THE BROKEN DOLL on DVD. I had previously seen the film under its American title HOUSE OF PSYCHOTIC WOMEN but this disc was a revelation. I've toyed with updating this piece but I realized that instead it might be a better idea to post it as it was originally written. You see - this was done years before I developed the NaschyCast podcast to explore the cinema of Paul Naschy and this represents my thoughts on him and his work before I made an attempt to really study the subject. Maybe fans of the show can get a kick out of how far I've come - or not! So, here is my decade old review. Enjoy!

*********************************************************************************

Gilles (Paul Naschy) is hitchhiking his way across northern France looking for a job. Each stop in a small town or village results in sullen stares from the out-of-work locals, a gentle indicator that he should move on. Trudging down a dark road one evening he's picked up by Claude (Diana Lorys). She's a pretty woman with a horribly scarred right arm on which she wears a prosthetic hand. Gilles apologizes for staring and his questions about how the wounds were inflicted are bluntly turned aside. But when Gilles asks about work, Claude offers him the position of gardener/caretaker of the ramshackle estate she shares with her two sisters. The last employee was let go under bad circumstances and the unemployed fellow gladly accepts.

On the way to the house the car strikes a bird, injuring it. When Claude mercifully kills the broken creature Gilles has a sudden flashback in which he seems to be strangling a woman. Upon arriving at the estate he meets Nicole (Eva Leon), the redheaded and very flirtatious sister. The third of the siblings is wheelchair bound Ivette (Maria Perschy). Claude introduces him and explains that Ivette was injured in an accident several years before, but declines to give any details. Gilles gets the impression that the two sisters' different injuries may be related.

The next morning Nicole follows the new hired hand around, watching him work and making her lustful intentions obvious. In the afternoon Ivette's new nurse arrives and, much to the surprise of her doctor, it's not the woman he recommended. Ivette is immediately suspicious of Nurse Michelle (Ines Morales), a gorgeous blonde, but the family doctor trusts her and does his best to set his patient's mind at ease. This becomes more difficult the next day, when it's discovered that the police have found the murdered body of the originally expected nurse beside the road on the way to the estate. Hmm. Could Michelle be hiding something sinister? She certainly acts odd, especially after a tense phone call from an unknown person. Hmm. And on the sinister side of things, Gilles is plagued by nightmares repeating the scenario of him strangling a laughing woman... And the nurse was strangled to death. Hmmmm. Happily for him, Nicole sneaks into his room on his second evening and administers her own brand of welcome. But is that a carefully controlled desire to grip her neck the man fights down as he makes love? Hmm... 

Doing yard work the following day, Gilles is attacked by a knife-wielding maniac. He's able to fight off and even stab the man as he escapes, but he receives a cut across his stomach. Michelle bandages him up and he rests the remainder of the day in bed. Claude visits him to explain that the man with the knife was Jean, the previous caretaker, who was fired for sleeping with nymphomaniac Nicole. It's clear Claude feels guilty about what happened and before the evening is over she's prescribed some sexual healing of her own. That's two of the sisters in the house... Will Gilles go for all three.

Later that night, in the nearby village, a young girl is attacked and killed while walking home through a cemetery. The victim's eyes (looking like soft boiled eggs) are gouged out and taken by the murderer. This second murder in a few days leads the police to fear they may have a serial killer on their hands. And after a third corpse appears the next morning — missing its eyes — the cops are in a frenzy to find the criminal. The single common denominator is that each girl killed had blonde hair and blue eyes. Hmm. Doesn't the woman in Gilles flashbacks/nightmares have blonde hair? Hmm.

The police suspect Jean, the missing knife-wielding ex-caretaker, but Claude does some snooping in Gilles' room and finds old newspaper clippings. These identify Gilles by another name and relate his past conviction for raping and killing his fiancée years before. Confronting Gilles with this information, he breaks down and tells her the details of his past, gaining her sympathy but leaving a real possibility in the viewer that he's our black-gloved killer. (Little hint for all ex-convicts trying to leave their past behind — don't carry around newspaper clippings that detail your criminal deeds.)

Throwing more confusion into the mix is the discovery of Jean in a field, dead from the stab wound inflicted by Gilles days earlier. Hmm. Who is murdering all these pretty young girls?

This is a great little thriller that easily fits into the giallo genre. Although some purist would argue that only the Italians made true gialli, I find that a silly and pointlessly limiting way of looking at European thrillers. This may be a Spanish-made film set in France but it's clearly a giallo and an inventive one at that. Indeed, I find Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll to be a strong example of its type with only one serious flaw — its often off-putting music. But even this flaw isn't a total disaster. The movie boasts two reoccurring tunes that underscore the story, one a bouncy piece that we first hear under the credits. While a very catchy song that I'd love to have on a soundtrack CD, its repeated use in some scenes that it REALLY doesn't fit works against the tension the film builds. More than once it plays under a dramatic sequence that it complete deflates with its cheerful sound. But the other song used is an amazing, sinister version of the old childhood sing-a-long "Frère Jacque" which is used during the stalking/attack scenes as the unseen killer picks off the blue-eyed victims. Sparse and haunting, the song becomes more off kilter and out of tune with each murder, giving a nice hint of the deteriorating mental state of the black-gloved strangler.

One of the great joys of any Paul Naschy (real name: Jacinto Molina) horror film is the feeling of affection for the genre that always shines through. Even in his lesser efforts it's obvious that he loves making monster movies and is honestly trying to make the best one he possibly can. Of course, this sometimes causes them to be so over-earnest in their seriousness that even a diehard fan can wish that characters would stop whining and just do something. Pathos and a surfeit of sentimentality often crept into the screenplays penned by Naschy. But luckily this was before horror film lengths expanded past the two hour mark so that final act rampage was never too far away. Also, his desire to inject some romanticism into nearly every story could come off as forced and silly by turns. These dives into doe-eyed lovemaking, complete with swelling musical accompaniment, were not helped by the fact that in nearly every case it was Naschy himself who was rolling around in the sack with the beautiful actresses. Not that Paul wasn't a fine example of studly machismo. But when the scriptwriter/actor ends up bedding almost every gorgeous woman in the film EVERY TIME it becomes a growing source of amusement. "Hey, Jacinto... How many naked actresses do you get to paw in this movie?" I suspect that a compilation of just the lovemaking scenes form his movies strung together one after another would make a pretty amusing (and lengthy) party tape. The looks of barely restrained lust are only rivaled in their entertainment value by his intense contortions of pain and rage during one of his dozens of screen werewolf transformations. For sheer emotional overkill, Naschy was your man! 

Luckily, Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll manages to avoid the over sentimentality of most Naschy stories. I thought we were really in for it when Ivette shows up in the wheelchair, but she is never played for cheap emotion. The character is central to the underlying tensions between the sisters but is kept mostly in the background, with only her paranoia about her new nurse giving a view into her inner world.

Of course, the main reason the film is so engrossing is its central mystery —who is killing the young women around the village? It's a great puzzle, and even if the final reveal shows that there was no way at all for a viewer to figure things out it's still a fun tale. The film goes out of its way to provide clues pointing to several characters, setting up plenty of red herrings. And even if we know it simply can't be Gilles (because he's the most obvious choice), his barely suppressed desire to strangle women does cause a few doubts.