Horror Comics
Rising from the ashes of the beloved (if erratic) print digest (that itself rose from the ashes of The Scream Factory magazine), we'd like to welcome you to the bare•bones e-zine. We look forward to offering the same irreverent reviews and commentary you've come to expect from us. And yes, we're back in PRINT, too! Click the links to the right to check out our recent issues!
I devour the BFI Best Films of All Time list whenever they deem it necessary to revise and I (invariably) disagree with most of the findings, but I still get a kick out of browsing. Same with Rolling Stone's inane Best 100 Albums (how does Sgt. Pepper drop from #1 to #24 in the latest incarnation?); the anger I feel subsides when I see they've put a couple of Aerosmith albums on the list! We all disagree with that number one but we keep right on scrolling through each choice.
This project, which has been percolating for quite a while, originated from the constant back and forth "good-natured bickering" between John Scoleri and myself. John invariably loves everything and I hate it all (for more of the discourse, I advise one and all to pick up a copy of bare•bones print magazine and read our debates about streaming and movie theaters to get a taste). I began to think it would be fun to compose a Favorite (as opposed to Best) 100 and compare our selections. Making it even more tantalizing, I managed to talk the third head of Ghidorah, Jack Seabrook, into participating. This could be interesting, since John's never seen a movie the two Georges (Romero and Lucas) didn't have a hand in, and Jack usually favors the flicks that have words at the bottom of the screen (dis-moi que j'ai tort, Jack!). I, on the other hand, can't wait to educate these two gentlemen as to what constitutes good cinema.
Every Thursday, we'll count down our picks two at a time. We're hoping this will generate discourse outside of our trio. Let us know just how crazy we are. This is going to be fun!—Peter
"They've shifted the tilt of the Earth. The crazy, stupid, irresponsible bastards. They've finally done it."
Imagine for a moment you're Val Guest, standing in front of the fifth studio you've pitched your screenplay to. "It's about the end of the world. The hammer that falls is climate change, something 99% of our prospective audience knows nothing nor cares one whit about, triggered by simultaneous nuclear testing by the US and USSR. Our hero is an alcoholic, self-obsessed asshole whose best days as a newspaper reporter are far behind him. Oh, and at the end I refuse to disclose whether humanity is saved. Well, boys, whattya think?"
Never mind that The Day the Earth Caught Fire is at least three decades ahead of its time, chastising each and every one of us for our shameful waste and arrogance, it's also a very entertaining experience. The dialogue is non-stop wit, doling out scientific exposition while also veering into comedic territory now and then, delivered by an aces cast headlined by a never better Edward Judd (who, despite being given an "and introducing" billing, was a veteran of films and TV). Judd manages to elicit both sympathy and disdain in his performance as Peter Smelling, once a top journalist now reduced to writing 500-word exposes on sunspots thanks to a relationship with the bottle.
At times, the Blu-ray treatment can expose the low-budget nature of The Day the Earth Caught Fire (Fleet Street clearly ends only a few yards from the action and gives way to painted backgrounds), but if you've ever visited London you'll marvel at just what Guest was able to get away with (during production, the director was only allowed access to one of the city's busiest avenues for two minutes at a time) and excuse any imperfections. That final scene, of the two newspaper headlines ready to roll at the printer, one displaying hope, the other doom, while the bells at St. Paul's ring, is the perfect place to leave us.
If you want happy endings and mindless fluff with your doomsday, I direct you to Michael Bay's Armageddon, but if you revel in bleak, thoughtful storytelling as I do, this is your banquet.—Peter
Remarks from the Gallery:
Jack: This sounds like one I would've watched but I don't recall for certain. I get Val Guest movies mixed up.
John: Great flick. I'm glad that by the time I discovered it, they had released it on DVD (and carried over to Blu-ray) with the color-tinted sequences intact, which I think really enhances the experience.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: Unlike you, Jack, I read the novel long before I saw the flick (at the Century in San Jose on opening night). With Kubrick at the helm and Nicholson in the lead, I was expecting The Shining to be fabulous but was immensely disappointed. I thought the fear factor in the book was dispensed with and Kubrick was fascinated with how crazy Nicholson looked in all those 1970s flicks. I know King hated what Kubrick did with his novel but I didn't read his comments until after I'd seen the movie myself so that didn't sway my opinion. Sure, it's got some classic scenes (the typewriter and the Duvall bathroom scene obviously) but there's so much more in the novel that reaches out and grabs you by the throat without resorting to cheap scares. The film also has a smell of pretension about it that turns me off. I know it was a critical darling (and remains so) but I think it's one of Kubrick's weaker projects. The mini-series wasn't much better so maybe The Shining is a story best read rather than seen.
John: I saw The Shining on home video before I read the book, and while I enjoyed it, I was too young to fully appreciate what Kubrick was doing. To be fair, only one Kubrick film has landed perfectly with me on my first viewing, but we can talk more about that in the months ahead. I'm glad I was recently able to see The Shining during a theatrical reissue, as it really benefits from the big screen experience. I did eventually read the book, and while I enjoyed it, it's not among my top 10 King books, either.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: As with your Mighty Wind, this is one I never even considered attending. The 1980s, to me, was not an era ripe with funny comedies. To be perfectly honest, I don't associate the 1980s with much of anything in the quality department and my 100 will reflect that.
Jack: I'm not familiar with this one at all. The title is vaguely familiar but I'm certain I've never seen it.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: Oh, I can ignore the soundtrack but you'll get my full rundown on this classic very soon.
Jack: Never seen it.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: I never bought into the hype. Well, I guess I did at first since I saw it opening weekend. Yep, for its time, the VFX are incredible but, past that, there's only Linda Hamilton and the decent Guns n Roses song to keep my interest. But, oh that Linda!
John: I remember being blown away by the visual effects when I saw T2 on opening night. While I still enjoy it, unlike the original Terminator, my esteem for T2 dropped considerably when I realized that the wow factor of that first viewing didn't carry over to subsequent viewings.
![]() |
| This Thursday... All Work and No Play... Right, Jack? |
![]() |
| And Next Week... Gomdulla Shows Mummex How to Get Business Done |
I devour the BFI Best Films of All Time list whenever they deem it necessary to revise and I (invariably) disagree with most of the findings, but I still get a kick out of browsing. Same with Rolling Stone's inane Best 100 Albums (how does Sgt. Pepper drop from #1 to #24 in the latest incarnation?); the anger I feel subsides when I see they've put a couple of Aerosmith albums on the list! We all disagree with that number one but we keep right on scrolling through each choice.
This project, which has been percolating for quite a while, originated from the constant, back and forth, "good natured bickering" between John Scoleri and myself. John invariably loves everything and I hate it all (for more of the discourse, I advise one and all to pick up a copy of bare•bones print magazine and read our debates about streaming and movie theaters to get a taste). I began to think it would be fun to compose a Favorite (as opposed to Best) 100 and compare our selections. Making it even more tantalizing, I managed to talk the third head of Ghidorah, Jack Seabrook, into participating. This could be interesting, since John's never seen a movie the two Georges (Romero and Lucas) didn't have a hand in, and Jack usually favors the flicks that have words at the bottom of the screen (dis-moi que j'ai tort, Jack!). I, on the other hand, can't wait to educate these two gentlemen as to what constitutes good cinema.
Every Thursday, we'll count down our picks two at a time. We're hoping this will generate discourse outside of our trio. Let us know just how crazy we are. This is going to be fun!—Peter
A History of Violence (2005)
"My husband does not know you. He wouldn't know you, somebody like you."
This is a deceptively easy movie to summarize once you've seen it but, while you're watching it for the first time, the pieces take a long time to fit together. Mortenson's Tom Stall sure seems like Smalltown, USA's most loved diner owner, a guy who'd give you that piece of pie and coffee for free if you were down on your luck; he'd be the first one out to the neighbors' place to help put out the barn fire. After some trouble at the diner involving two psychopaths lands him on the nationwide news, you can see he's very uncomfortable with the attention. But surely that's because he really doesn't believe himself to be a hero, right?
When mobster Ed Harris comes to town and harasses Tom, telling him he knows his real identity, it's surely a horrific case of mistaken identity, right? Family man Tom couldn't really be gangster Joey Cusack, hiding from his past, could he? Once you know the twist, you can look for the clues, and David Cronenberg does not cheat. That's a very important point. A lot of these "he's not who he seems to be" flicks will manipulate characters, dialogue, and situations to fit their ultimate surprise reveal, but Cronenberg leaves a trail of breadcrumbs (the way Mortenson watches himself on TV and shakes his head can be construed differently on the second viewing), almost hoping you'll see what's coming. Once we do find out the big secret and Viggo's demeanor changes, it's done organically, as if Tom Stall might just have a split personality.
This cast is top-notch, from Mortenson to the incredibly sexy Bello to the never more hammy William Hurt (in what could only be described as a glorified cameo). In an interesting contrast, Mortenson would work with Cronenberg again two years later in Eastern Promises, a movie that takes the premise of History and reverses it.—Peter
Remarks from the Gallery
Jack: I saw this in a theater when it came out. I remember that my wife and I were on vacation somewhere and knew nothing about it. We walked in cold and I was blown away. This should probably be on my list. Viggo Mortenson and Ed Harris are great in it, but William Hurt just cracked me up. His scene near the end is a classic.
John: Undoubtedly a great flick—perhaps Cronenberg's best. And one that was under consideration for my top 100 but didn't quite make the cut on the day. A fantastic cast (Ed Harris, who is always great, is particularly good in this), but I have to call out the one you failed to mention—Maria Bello. She's great as Tom's wife, who's learning about his history along with the audience.
Remarks from the Gallery:
Peter: You stumped me again, Mr. Seabrook! I've heard of Jack Benny and Carole Lombard but never heard of the flick. I've definitely heard of Joe Tura (inside joke).
John: I was aware of the Mel Brooks remake but too haven't seen either version.
Carnival of Souls (1962)
Remarks from the Gallery
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
"Peter Parker? 'Brilliant but lazy.'"
Growing up, The Amazing Spider-Man was my favorite comic title; its writer, the late, great Gerry Conway, just seemed to come up with hook after hook (most of them used as foundation for the movies). I was lucky enough to experience the wonders of the early 1970s arcs like The Death of Gwen, The Death of the Goblin, The Gwen-Clone, The Jackal/Professor Warren, and The Punisher. When I heard Sam Raimi would be helming Spider-Man (2001), I was thrilled, but the finished product was less than thrilling. It's okay, don't get me wrong, but that Goblin uni pretty much ruins the flick for me.
So, I went into Spider-Man 2 with lowered expectations but found quickly that Raimi had finally figured it out; Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is the best realization of any of the Spidey villains on screen. The trick is to portray the bad guy as a real man and therefore a real threat, as opposed to Willem Dafoe's hammy Norman Osborn. The script (with a helping hand from novelist/comic book enthusiast Michael Chabon) is packed with the kind of self-reflecting dialogue you don't usually associate with guys in spandex. The El scene manages to sustain an incredible amount of suspense even if you do know how it's going to resolve itself. And, as much as I like Tom Holland as Spidey in the new cycle, Tobey Maguire is Peter Parker.
Alas, this was the last time we'd experience that kind of Spidey movie for several years (Spider-Man 3 was a bloated, rambling disaster and don't get me started on the two Andrew Garfield crapfests), but hold on to this one, the second best Marvel superhero movie of all time.-Peter
Remarks from the Gallery
Jack: Ah, for the good old days when Marvel movies were fun! I liked the first Spider-Man movie a lot, but I agree with you that this one was even better, in large part due to Alfred Molina as Doc Ock. Tobey Maguire was a great choice to play Peter Parker. Now you have me wondering what your #1 Marvel flick is!
John: For me, Spider-Man was the beginning of the end (for a while, anyway) of the great Sam Raimi. And while we are in agreement that this one is the best of the Tobey Maguire cycle, I cannot agree that he was the best Spider-Man. Garfield was different, but not drastically better. For my money, Tom Holland is Peter Parker/Spider-Man. 'Nuff said.
Remarks from the Gallery
Remarks from the Gallery