The ZombieTastic Review of:
City of the Living Dead
City of the Living Dead
Director: Lucio Fulci
Year of Release: 1980
Country of Origin: Italy
Type of Zombie Film: Slowly-Paced Snore-Fest
Also Known as: Paura nella città dei morti viventi, The Fear, Fear in
the City of the Living Dead, The Gates of Hell, Twilight of the Living
Dead, Ein Zombie hing am Glockenseil, Ein Toter hing am
Glockenseil, Eine Leiche hing am Glockenseil, Ein Kadaver hing
am Glockenseil
Part of a series?: One-third of Fulci's unofficial "Zombie Trilogy"
The Scoring
Plot: Contrary to what the title might lead you to believe, City of the Living Dead isn't about
Indianapolis. In fact, it's not about any cities in Indiana at all. No, in actuality this film is
about a priest who kills himself in a town called Dunwich; this act, for some reason, causes
the dead that are buried in Dunwich to rise. An attempt to explain why this is so is never
made, but the lesson is clear: be careful where you commit suicide, because, like, some
weird shit can go down.
Score: 1
Exposition: City of the Living Dead is a tough film to score along these lines. On the one
hand, there isn't a whole lot of exposition, outside of a random mystic lady explaining that
the Book of Enoch has something to do with what's happening. On the other hand, due to a
pervasive lack of zombies in what is ostensibly a zombie movie (more on this later), the only
way that we really know that there are any zombies is because people throughout the film
keep stating that the dead are rising. I guess it's easier and cheaper to describe this than it
is to actually show it. The point is that I have no idea how to score this category. When in
doubt, give a 'C', that's what I say.
Score: 3
Plausibility: It's hard to tell if a film is plausible when you don't actually understand what is
happening during the film, or even why it's happening. That being said, City of the Living
Dead has to score rather low in this category for featuring some rather absurd, implausible
moments. Here's an example that I think illustrates this: after a number of the residents of
Dunwich have inexplicably disappeared, the local rubes who hang out in the local bar (and
who sort of function as a Greek chorus during the movie (without, of course, actually
speaking Greek--that would just be weird)) decide that a young man named Bobby is
responsible for said disappearances, I think (a) because they don't really like him, but more
importantly (b) because he's kind of creepy looking. Shortly thereafter, when one of these
drunken rubes discovers Bobby in his garage, he, without explanation, grabs Bobby, throws
him onto a workbench, and murders him by plunging a large motorized drill through his
head. As random and gruesome as this is, it's never once mentioned in the film after it
happens. WHAT THE FUCK? The police don't care about this? The drunken rube's family
doesn't care that there's a dead guy with a hole in his head in their garage? What exactly is
happening here? I guess what I'm really asking is this: is getting away with power drill
murder in one's garage really this easy? If so, I have quite a few people that I need to invite
over to my house in the near future.
Score: 1
Production Value: To put it bluntly, City of the Living Dead is a total mess production-wise.
How can I best describe this? I think I'll start by giving this simple tip: if you're filming a
movie that takes place in America, and the film is going to show an automobile, it's
probably a good idea to make sure that the steering wheel is on the left-hand side of the
car, and not the other way around. That's just how we do it here in the USA.--it's our thing. I
guess ultimately the main problem with the production value of City of the Living Dead is
that the film's poster is scarier and more menacing that anything in the film itself. That's
never a good sign.
Score: 2
Special Effects: Aside from the aforementioned absurd, utterly superfluous "drill though the
head" scene (which is, admittedly, rather well done), City of the Living Dead only features
two real "special effects" scenes. One of them comes when the kid who actually gets his
head drilled runs into a seemingly abandoned house and watches a female sex doll inflate
itself. Why this happens is never explained, or even touched on, which is a real shame,
because perhaps it was some crucial plot point that I simply didn't understand.
Regardless, the effect begs the question: did the makers of this movie simply film a sex
doll deflating and then reverse the footage, OR did they invent a sex doll that knew when you
wanted to party with it, and could inflate itself when appropriate? If the latter is true, does
anyone know where I could get one of these dolls? I realize that I'm kind of rambling; all I'm
trying to say is that as you may be able to tell, the sex doll sequence was AMAZING to
watch. The other effects scene comes during a psychotherapy session. A woman is
petting a cat; suddenly, the cat begins to screech. The camera cuts to the woman's lap,
and we see her hands engaged in a furious "struggle" with a plush toy. She throws the toy
onto a nearby couch, and through the magic of jump-cutting and poor editing, the plush toy
miraculously transforms into a real live kitten. Not exactly effective, but then again it was
mildly unsettling, as it brought to mind the Furbie scare of '02, when all of those Furbies
contracted rabies and started roaming suburban neighborhoods, killing and eating all who
crossed their path. Those were strange times.
Score: 3
Makeup: When Father Thomas (the guy whose death supposedly opens the gates of hell)
is wandering around, post-suicide (don't ask), he sports a subtle makeup job that makes
him look not unlike someone suffering through the ravages of consumption. Unfortunately,
City of the Living Dead isn't a 19th century Russian novel, so the makeup job is rather out
of place. That said, when the zombies finally do show up towards the end of the movie, they
are somewhat creepy looking. On second thought, I realize that they more or less look like
normal people, but with a bunch of mud smeared on their faces. If I had wanted to see that,
I would have rented a documentary about Woodstock 94, you know? That reminds me--
wouldn't you have felt a lot better about that event if zombies had shown up during Green
Day's set and torn the place to shreds? Oh, I'm the only one who would have enjoyed that?
Whatever.
Score: 2
Scariness: There's not much scariness to be had in this film, unless you consider being
bored scary (don't worry--I'm not going to judge you if you do, although I recommend that
you purchase a helmet sometime in the near future). Still, at one point, when our "heroes"
arrive in Dunwich and begin searching through a graveyard for some reason, the lead
character of Peter Bell, after being unable to locate Father Thomas's tombstone, remarks,
"Good thing he didn't hang himself in Arlington." Consider this: I was in Arlington when I
watched this film. CREEPY, RIGHT? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
Score: 1
Goriness: There are some effective gore scenes in City of the Living Dead. In addition to
the aforementioned instance of a drill through the head, the audience is also treated to a
prolonged sequence during which a girl spontaneously vomits up everything inside her
body--guts, organs, Mexicans that she had hidden in her small colon in order to smuggle
into America...all that and more. I have no idea what this had to do with zombies, but it was
definitely gory, even if the fact of the matter is that you can see something quite similar in
virtually any frat house in America on a Saturday night. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
the only thing I love more than gore is higher education.
Score: 3
Final Scene: After "relentlessly" (i.e., in an excruciatingly boring and haphazard fashion)
building the tension throughout the film, Fulci has our heroes finally face off with the evil
Father Thomas during City of the Living Dead's penultimate scene. After staring at him for
a few moments and then stabbing him and immediately killing him with no resistance
whatsoever (which was seriously lame), our heroes watch as Father Thomas "dies", and
every zombie in the vicinity inexplicably bursts into flames. Honestly, I haven't been that
bored by the climax of a film since I saw The Waterboy. Anyways, said heroes then climb
out of a tomb, and see some dipshit little kid that they befriended earlier in the film.
Everyone starts laughing, and the kid starts running towards them, and he begins to move
in slow motion, and then someone screams, and then there's a freeze-fame on the little kid,
and then the credits roll. I'm hard pressed to even offer a theory as to what the fuck
happens in the scene that I just described. Was someone screaming because they were
afraid that the kid would fall and stain his jeans? Was the kid actually a zombie? Is my life
a lie because I'm actually expending energy trying to figure out the ending of this piece of
shit film? Let's move on instead of answering these questions, shall we?
Score: 1
Comedy: If I told you that this film featured a rain of worms, that might excite you. If you did
become excited, I would point out to you that I said rain of worms, not the Reign of the
Worm. My point is simple: if Dennis Rodman had shown up during the movie, I'm sure that
the proceedings would have been infinitely more mirthful. But, the truth of the matter is that
nothing even inadvertently funny happens during City of the Living Dead. As such, I was
forced to come up with my own comedy during the film, which is never a good thing. Here's
one of the jokes that I wrote during the flick--Q: How do you make a zombie eat his own
flesh instead of the flesh of the living? A: Make him watch City of the Living Dead. My point
is simply this: if you think that joke sucked, try watching this movie and you'll know what
sucking truly is. And not in a good "blowjob while you're driving" kind of way. You know
what I'm saying.
Score: 1
Originality: I do have to admit that City of the Living Dead is definitely unique and original
amongst the many, many zombie movies that I've seen over the years. What's so unique
about it? I'm glad you asked! The answer is simple: this is the only zombie movie that I've
ever seen that isn't really interested in featuring zombies on screen AT ALL. Seriously, in a
92-minute film, the zombies don't actually show up and start doing their full on zombie thing
until about the 69 minute mark (was that intentional? I'm not sure, but the film was made by
an Italian dude--think about it.) If you're doing the math at home, that means that
approximately 75% of this movie is zombie-free. Until the 69-minute mark (about which I've
already made all the jokes that I'm going to make), all we're treated to in terms of the living
dead are brief, shadowy glimpses of beings that may or may not be zombies. As I say,
that's something that I've honestly never encountered before in a zombie movie. Still, I have
to give City of the Living Dead a low score in this category, because this zombie paucity is
not the kind of "originality" that I want to encourage amongst zombie film makers (by
"zombie film makers" I mean "people who make films about zombies", and not "zombies
that make films"--just wanted to clear up any potential confusion.) I mean, I don't watch
According to Jim because I don't want to watch a comedy that doesn't feature anything funny
at all. Similarly, I don't want to watch a zombie movie that doesn't feature zombies. Why?
Because to do so would be FUCKING RETARDED. I think I've made my point.
Score: 1
Rewatchability: I'm sure you know how I feel about City of the Living Dead on this point. I
mean, I'm impressed that I made it through this flick even one time, and a second viewing
is out of the question. Honestly, I would bludgeon myself with the actual DVD of City of the
Living Dead before I would ever watch it again. That's not hyperbole.
Score: 1
Datedness: I'm going to have to give City of the Living Dead a perfect score in this
category. Why, you ask? Simple: because it's that rare film that would suck in all eras,
regardless of when it was made, or when it was being watched.
Score: 5
Soundtrack: By and large, the soundtrack to the film is nondescript keyboard music. Still,
early on some of the music reminded me of The Warriors, so I have to give City of the
Living Dead some points for its soundtrack, because it at least made me think of another,
much better movie.
Score: 3
Breast Factor/Nudity: Hey, remember that self-inflating blow-up doll that I mentioned
earlier? Yeah, that's the sum total of the nudity in this film. If you're going to bore the shit
out of us, you could at least give us some skin, you know? I mean, the news features more
nudity than that, for crying out loud (especially if you live in Brazil--at least, that's what I hear).
Score: 1
Lead Actor: Christopher George is fine in the lead role of Peter Bell. He's not a great actor,
but he's not terrible either. Ironically, I feel the same way about the food at Chipotle. I just
thought you might like to know that.
Score: 3
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: : Catriona MacColl as Mary Woodhouse. Much like Christopher
George, Catriona MacColl isn't great, she isn't terrible, she's just sort of there. Then again,
her near-constant shrieking throughout the film is really fucking annoying--that's got to
count for something, right? Of course, all of the dialogue in this movie was clearly re-
dubbed during post-production, so perhaps said shrieking wasn't produced by Catriona
MacColl at all. Still, she looked like she was doing it, which I guess should score her some
acting points. Whatever, I'm tired of discussing this.
Score: 3
Overall Cast: The best part of the overall cast are two gravediggers encountered early on in
the film who bear striking resemblances to David Spade and Vince Vaughn (seriously, if
you ever sit through this movie, pay attention to their scene--the resemblance is uncanny).
The worst part of the overall cast is the overall cast. I guess they're not better or worse than
your average zombie movie cast, the problem is simply that when you watch a zombie
movie that doesn't have zombies, you're forced to focus on the acting, and frankly, none of
these people have enough skills to hold up under that kind of scrutiny.
Score: 2
Token Scientist: City of the Living Dead doesn't have any scientists, but it does feature a
journalist, a hippie, a Freudian psychiatrist, an undertaker, several policemen, and lots of
worms. Awesome.
Score: 1
Token Fat Guy: The only person in this movie who even comes close to being the token fat
guy is the character who owns/runs the bar that contains the rubes who hate the guy who
gets his head drilled, and this bar owner is more stocky than he is fat. At least he gets
eaten towards the end of the film. I like to find the silver lining in everything.
Score: 1
Best Line: Something I've realized is that even the shittiest of zombie movies usually feature
an occasional memorable or interesting line, and City of the Living Dead is no exception. I
mean, shockingly, it actually features some semi-decent dialogue:
Intangibles: Something that City of the Living Dead brings to the intangibility table is its
relentless boredom. Even when "exciting" things are happening on the screen, one can't
help but feel bored in a pervasive, near-total way. That's pretty interesting to me; I mean, I've
felt relentless dread, relentless excitement, and once, after I drank an entire bottle of
Avalanche Blue Peppermint Schnapps, relentless nausea, but never relentless boredom. I
don't really have a point to make with this.
Score: 3
Zombie Believability: I'll be blunt with this category: it's hard to have zombie believability
when you barely get around to showing people zombies in the first place.
Score: 1
Zombie Attack Scenes: I don't remember which character it was (because by that point in
the film, I was just trying to stay awake and/or not smash my television set), but late in the
film, someone in the movie is walking home along a darkened street. S/he passes under a
bridge and looks up, to discover via the magic of shitty editing, a zombie "appear" on top of
the bridge. The zombie then jumps off of the bridge with its arms akimbo, somewhat
resembling a clumsy ninja (is that an oxymoron?) in the process. The zombie then grabs
the character, and the character runs away, unscathed. That was the most exciting zombie
attack scene in the entire movie, and that's really fucking pathetic.
Score: 1
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: At one point during City of the Living Dead, I was pretty sure that a
full-on zombie orgy was about to break out; fearing zombie attack, the non-fat fat bar owner
closes up his shop, only to then have his drinking establishment infiltrated by a horde of the
living dead. I'm not sure why they decided to show up at the bar in the first place, but there
was a large Schlitz sign in the window, so theoretically the zombies were there because
they needed to wet their whistle with a quality, low-priced brew. Regardless, the point is
that the zombies arrive and appear set to commence with full zombie orgy action. Then, out
of nowhere, the movie cuts to a completely different scene. A few minutes later, we cut back
to the bar, only to find everyone dead and the zombies shambling out. In other words, the
audience gets cheated out of the only possibly interesting sequence in the entire film. This
would be the equivalent of sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner, then blacking out, then
coming to and discovering your Uncle Joe passed out on the couch and your dog Buster
standing on the table, finishing off the sweet potatoes, of which you had none. What a rip-
off.
Score: 1
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Do slowness and boredom count as anti-zombie weapons? Oh
wait, no, they count as anti-audience weapons. My mistake. I guess the only real anti-
zombie weapon in this movie is the undead priest, because as I mentioned, when he's
"killed", all nearby zombies burst into flames. The thing is, the undead priest is also the
reason that the zombies exist in the first place, so he's like the poison and the antidote, all
rolled into one. Weird, huh? No wait, it's just stupid. Never mind.
Score: 1
Zombification Explanation: As mentioned earlier, the suicide of Father Thomas somehow
causes the dead to rise. What this has to do with witches, Massachusetts, or séances is
beyond me.
Score: 1
Zombie "Uniqueness": The few zombies that we do see in City of the Living Dead at least
behave in a somewhat unique fashion. Rather than just choking or eating their victims like
most zombies do, the undead in this film quite commonly grab people by the crowns of
their heads, and squeeze until their brains start oozing out. It's pretty cool to watch,
although towards the end of the film it happens repeatedly, probably because Lucio Fulci
figured out how to do this cheaply. I should also say that at one point, as our heroes are
traipsing through a graveyard, they hear what are presumably zombie noises that sound
remarkably similar to monkey sounds. I don't mean that they bear any resemblance to
Davey Jones (although Zombies vs. The Monkees would have been infinitely more
viewable than City of the Living Dead), but rather that the zombies sound very simian when
groaning and grunting. I'm not sure why this is, but I thought I'd mention it all the same.
Why? Because I'm trying to waste your time; or, as I call it, "pulling a Fulci."
Score: 3
Zombie Consistency: If I can beat this point into the ground: the zombies never really even
show up in this film, which I guess means that they're very consistent, right?
Score: 5
Signature Zombie: As far as I could tell, City of the Living Dead didn't have a signature
zombie, probably because, again, it didn't really have zombies, either. Blah.
Score: 1
Total Points: 60
Verdict: Whew, this one is a real stinker, people. Let me spell it out for you: avoid City of
the Living Dead at all costs. You'll be glad that you did. Ultimately, the irony of this film's
shittiness is that Lucio Fulci is considered by many to be the "number two" name in zombie
movies, behind only George Romero. And yet, this film was a complete chore to sit
through, being neither scary nor particularly interesting. The point, I think, is that Fulci is a
lot like The Olive Garden: Italian and well known, but completely bland.
Next Time: Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead
Year of Release: 1980
Country of Origin: Italy
Type of Zombie Film: Slowly-Paced Snore-Fest
Also Known as: Paura nella città dei morti viventi, The Fear, Fear in
the City of the Living Dead, The Gates of Hell, Twilight of the Living
Dead, Ein Zombie hing am Glockenseil, Ein Toter hing am
Glockenseil, Eine Leiche hing am Glockenseil, Ein Kadaver hing
am Glockenseil
Part of a series?: One-third of Fulci's unofficial "Zombie Trilogy"
The Scoring
Plot: Contrary to what the title might lead you to believe, City of the Living Dead isn't about
Indianapolis. In fact, it's not about any cities in Indiana at all. No, in actuality this film is
about a priest who kills himself in a town called Dunwich; this act, for some reason, causes
the dead that are buried in Dunwich to rise. An attempt to explain why this is so is never
made, but the lesson is clear: be careful where you commit suicide, because, like, some
weird shit can go down.
Score: 1
Exposition: City of the Living Dead is a tough film to score along these lines. On the one
hand, there isn't a whole lot of exposition, outside of a random mystic lady explaining that
the Book of Enoch has something to do with what's happening. On the other hand, due to a
pervasive lack of zombies in what is ostensibly a zombie movie (more on this later), the only
way that we really know that there are any zombies is because people throughout the film
keep stating that the dead are rising. I guess it's easier and cheaper to describe this than it
is to actually show it. The point is that I have no idea how to score this category. When in
doubt, give a 'C', that's what I say.
Score: 3
Plausibility: It's hard to tell if a film is plausible when you don't actually understand what is
happening during the film, or even why it's happening. That being said, City of the Living
Dead has to score rather low in this category for featuring some rather absurd, implausible
moments. Here's an example that I think illustrates this: after a number of the residents of
Dunwich have inexplicably disappeared, the local rubes who hang out in the local bar (and
who sort of function as a Greek chorus during the movie (without, of course, actually
speaking Greek--that would just be weird)) decide that a young man named Bobby is
responsible for said disappearances, I think (a) because they don't really like him, but more
importantly (b) because he's kind of creepy looking. Shortly thereafter, when one of these
drunken rubes discovers Bobby in his garage, he, without explanation, grabs Bobby, throws
him onto a workbench, and murders him by plunging a large motorized drill through his
head. As random and gruesome as this is, it's never once mentioned in the film after it
happens. WHAT THE FUCK? The police don't care about this? The drunken rube's family
doesn't care that there's a dead guy with a hole in his head in their garage? What exactly is
happening here? I guess what I'm really asking is this: is getting away with power drill
murder in one's garage really this easy? If so, I have quite a few people that I need to invite
over to my house in the near future.
Score: 1
Production Value: To put it bluntly, City of the Living Dead is a total mess production-wise.
How can I best describe this? I think I'll start by giving this simple tip: if you're filming a
movie that takes place in America, and the film is going to show an automobile, it's
probably a good idea to make sure that the steering wheel is on the left-hand side of the
car, and not the other way around. That's just how we do it here in the USA.--it's our thing. I
guess ultimately the main problem with the production value of City of the Living Dead is
that the film's poster is scarier and more menacing that anything in the film itself. That's
never a good sign.
Score: 2
Special Effects: Aside from the aforementioned absurd, utterly superfluous "drill though the
head" scene (which is, admittedly, rather well done), City of the Living Dead only features
two real "special effects" scenes. One of them comes when the kid who actually gets his
head drilled runs into a seemingly abandoned house and watches a female sex doll inflate
itself. Why this happens is never explained, or even touched on, which is a real shame,
because perhaps it was some crucial plot point that I simply didn't understand.
Regardless, the effect begs the question: did the makers of this movie simply film a sex
doll deflating and then reverse the footage, OR did they invent a sex doll that knew when you
wanted to party with it, and could inflate itself when appropriate? If the latter is true, does
anyone know where I could get one of these dolls? I realize that I'm kind of rambling; all I'm
trying to say is that as you may be able to tell, the sex doll sequence was AMAZING to
watch. The other effects scene comes during a psychotherapy session. A woman is
petting a cat; suddenly, the cat begins to screech. The camera cuts to the woman's lap,
and we see her hands engaged in a furious "struggle" with a plush toy. She throws the toy
onto a nearby couch, and through the magic of jump-cutting and poor editing, the plush toy
miraculously transforms into a real live kitten. Not exactly effective, but then again it was
mildly unsettling, as it brought to mind the Furbie scare of '02, when all of those Furbies
contracted rabies and started roaming suburban neighborhoods, killing and eating all who
crossed their path. Those were strange times.
Score: 3
Makeup: When Father Thomas (the guy whose death supposedly opens the gates of hell)
is wandering around, post-suicide (don't ask), he sports a subtle makeup job that makes
him look not unlike someone suffering through the ravages of consumption. Unfortunately,
City of the Living Dead isn't a 19th century Russian novel, so the makeup job is rather out
of place. That said, when the zombies finally do show up towards the end of the movie, they
are somewhat creepy looking. On second thought, I realize that they more or less look like
normal people, but with a bunch of mud smeared on their faces. If I had wanted to see that,
I would have rented a documentary about Woodstock 94, you know? That reminds me--
wouldn't you have felt a lot better about that event if zombies had shown up during Green
Day's set and torn the place to shreds? Oh, I'm the only one who would have enjoyed that?
Whatever.
Score: 2
Scariness: There's not much scariness to be had in this film, unless you consider being
bored scary (don't worry--I'm not going to judge you if you do, although I recommend that
you purchase a helmet sometime in the near future). Still, at one point, when our "heroes"
arrive in Dunwich and begin searching through a graveyard for some reason, the lead
character of Peter Bell, after being unable to locate Father Thomas's tombstone, remarks,
"Good thing he didn't hang himself in Arlington." Consider this: I was in Arlington when I
watched this film. CREEPY, RIGHT? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
Score: 1
Goriness: There are some effective gore scenes in City of the Living Dead. In addition to
the aforementioned instance of a drill through the head, the audience is also treated to a
prolonged sequence during which a girl spontaneously vomits up everything inside her
body--guts, organs, Mexicans that she had hidden in her small colon in order to smuggle
into America...all that and more. I have no idea what this had to do with zombies, but it was
definitely gory, even if the fact of the matter is that you can see something quite similar in
virtually any frat house in America on a Saturday night. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
the only thing I love more than gore is higher education.
Score: 3
Final Scene: After "relentlessly" (i.e., in an excruciatingly boring and haphazard fashion)
building the tension throughout the film, Fulci has our heroes finally face off with the evil
Father Thomas during City of the Living Dead's penultimate scene. After staring at him for
a few moments and then stabbing him and immediately killing him with no resistance
whatsoever (which was seriously lame), our heroes watch as Father Thomas "dies", and
every zombie in the vicinity inexplicably bursts into flames. Honestly, I haven't been that
bored by the climax of a film since I saw The Waterboy. Anyways, said heroes then climb
out of a tomb, and see some dipshit little kid that they befriended earlier in the film.
Everyone starts laughing, and the kid starts running towards them, and he begins to move
in slow motion, and then someone screams, and then there's a freeze-fame on the little kid,
and then the credits roll. I'm hard pressed to even offer a theory as to what the fuck
happens in the scene that I just described. Was someone screaming because they were
afraid that the kid would fall and stain his jeans? Was the kid actually a zombie? Is my life
a lie because I'm actually expending energy trying to figure out the ending of this piece of
shit film? Let's move on instead of answering these questions, shall we?
Score: 1
Comedy: If I told you that this film featured a rain of worms, that might excite you. If you did
become excited, I would point out to you that I said rain of worms, not the Reign of the
Worm. My point is simple: if Dennis Rodman had shown up during the movie, I'm sure that
the proceedings would have been infinitely more mirthful. But, the truth of the matter is that
nothing even inadvertently funny happens during City of the Living Dead. As such, I was
forced to come up with my own comedy during the film, which is never a good thing. Here's
one of the jokes that I wrote during the flick--Q: How do you make a zombie eat his own
flesh instead of the flesh of the living? A: Make him watch City of the Living Dead. My point
is simply this: if you think that joke sucked, try watching this movie and you'll know what
sucking truly is. And not in a good "blowjob while you're driving" kind of way. You know
what I'm saying.
Score: 1
Originality: I do have to admit that City of the Living Dead is definitely unique and original
amongst the many, many zombie movies that I've seen over the years. What's so unique
about it? I'm glad you asked! The answer is simple: this is the only zombie movie that I've
ever seen that isn't really interested in featuring zombies on screen AT ALL. Seriously, in a
92-minute film, the zombies don't actually show up and start doing their full on zombie thing
until about the 69 minute mark (was that intentional? I'm not sure, but the film was made by
an Italian dude--think about it.) If you're doing the math at home, that means that
approximately 75% of this movie is zombie-free. Until the 69-minute mark (about which I've
already made all the jokes that I'm going to make), all we're treated to in terms of the living
dead are brief, shadowy glimpses of beings that may or may not be zombies. As I say,
that's something that I've honestly never encountered before in a zombie movie. Still, I have
to give City of the Living Dead a low score in this category, because this zombie paucity is
not the kind of "originality" that I want to encourage amongst zombie film makers (by
"zombie film makers" I mean "people who make films about zombies", and not "zombies
that make films"--just wanted to clear up any potential confusion.) I mean, I don't watch
According to Jim because I don't want to watch a comedy that doesn't feature anything funny
at all. Similarly, I don't want to watch a zombie movie that doesn't feature zombies. Why?
Because to do so would be FUCKING RETARDED. I think I've made my point.
Score: 1
Rewatchability: I'm sure you know how I feel about City of the Living Dead on this point. I
mean, I'm impressed that I made it through this flick even one time, and a second viewing
is out of the question. Honestly, I would bludgeon myself with the actual DVD of City of the
Living Dead before I would ever watch it again. That's not hyperbole.
Score: 1
Datedness: I'm going to have to give City of the Living Dead a perfect score in this
category. Why, you ask? Simple: because it's that rare film that would suck in all eras,
regardless of when it was made, or when it was being watched.
Score: 5
Soundtrack: By and large, the soundtrack to the film is nondescript keyboard music. Still,
early on some of the music reminded me of The Warriors, so I have to give City of the
Living Dead some points for its soundtrack, because it at least made me think of another,
much better movie.
Score: 3
Breast Factor/Nudity: Hey, remember that self-inflating blow-up doll that I mentioned
earlier? Yeah, that's the sum total of the nudity in this film. If you're going to bore the shit
out of us, you could at least give us some skin, you know? I mean, the news features more
nudity than that, for crying out loud (especially if you live in Brazil--at least, that's what I hear).
Score: 1
Lead Actor: Christopher George is fine in the lead role of Peter Bell. He's not a great actor,
but he's not terrible either. Ironically, I feel the same way about the food at Chipotle. I just
thought you might like to know that.
Score: 3
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: : Catriona MacColl as Mary Woodhouse. Much like Christopher
George, Catriona MacColl isn't great, she isn't terrible, she's just sort of there. Then again,
her near-constant shrieking throughout the film is really fucking annoying--that's got to
count for something, right? Of course, all of the dialogue in this movie was clearly re-
dubbed during post-production, so perhaps said shrieking wasn't produced by Catriona
MacColl at all. Still, she looked like she was doing it, which I guess should score her some
acting points. Whatever, I'm tired of discussing this.
Score: 3
Overall Cast: The best part of the overall cast are two gravediggers encountered early on in
the film who bear striking resemblances to David Spade and Vince Vaughn (seriously, if
you ever sit through this movie, pay attention to their scene--the resemblance is uncanny).
The worst part of the overall cast is the overall cast. I guess they're not better or worse than
your average zombie movie cast, the problem is simply that when you watch a zombie
movie that doesn't have zombies, you're forced to focus on the acting, and frankly, none of
these people have enough skills to hold up under that kind of scrutiny.
Score: 2
Token Scientist: City of the Living Dead doesn't have any scientists, but it does feature a
journalist, a hippie, a Freudian psychiatrist, an undertaker, several policemen, and lots of
worms. Awesome.
Score: 1
Token Fat Guy: The only person in this movie who even comes close to being the token fat
guy is the character who owns/runs the bar that contains the rubes who hate the guy who
gets his head drilled, and this bar owner is more stocky than he is fat. At least he gets
eaten towards the end of the film. I like to find the silver lining in everything.
Score: 1
Best Line: Something I've realized is that even the shittiest of zombie movies usually feature
an occasional memorable or interesting line, and City of the Living Dead is no exception. I
mean, shockingly, it actually features some semi-decent dialogue:
- After the character of Mary comments that she's hungry, Peter Bell replies by telling
her, "Good, there's a lollipop in the glove box." This is a pretty good line because it
works on two levels: on the one hand, it might just be an instance of the witty
repartee that exists between Peter and Mary, dialogue worthy of Bogart and Bacall (I
mean, if they had acted in shitty zombie movies, which reminds me--wouldn't The
Big Sleep have been a lot cooler if it had featured the living dead in lieu of
blackmail?) On the other hand, this line could also be a fantastic euphemism that
I've never heard before. Let's me put it this way: the next time I'm trolling for chicks at
my local watering hole, I'm definitely going to let them know that if they're hungry, I've
got a lollipop in my glove box. Ugh, you know what? I just totally grossed myself out
with my own skeeviness. Let's move on to the next line, shall we? - Early on in the film, a police inspector arrives at a hippie pad, where a séance has
just taken place. The inspector, obviously oblivious to the effects of most drugs,
presumes that everyone in the place is "high", I think probably because none of
them are wearing ties--that's usually a pretty solid indicator that drugs are being
consumed. Anyways, the inspector, trying to get some answers from the hippies,
grabs one of them and yells in his face, "What are you on? Coke? GRASS?
Where's the stash, down the toilet?!" I think I like this line because it's so
audacious--why would the inspector list "grass" after cocaine? Does he even know
what marijuana is or what it does? Additionally, is he not aware that a toilet is
possibly the worst place imaginable to store anything, because it's filled with water
and/or fecal matter? If this is the type of police officer that we're expecting to protect
us from the zombie menace, we're in trouble. - Ultimately, I think the best line in City of the Living Dead occurs during a
conversation between the David Space/Vince Vaughan clones that I mentioned
earlier. It goes like this: David Spade-looking dude--"I saw a porno flick once, where
this guy got so carried away, he humped himself to death." Vince Vaughan-looking
dude--"Yeah, but what a way to go." I like this conversation for two reasons: (1) it
closely resembles virtually every conversation that I've ever had, and (b) it shows that
there are people out there who are willing to discuss pornography in a graveyard. I
for one think that these people should be saluted for their bravery.
Intangibles: Something that City of the Living Dead brings to the intangibility table is its
relentless boredom. Even when "exciting" things are happening on the screen, one can't
help but feel bored in a pervasive, near-total way. That's pretty interesting to me; I mean, I've
felt relentless dread, relentless excitement, and once, after I drank an entire bottle of
Avalanche Blue Peppermint Schnapps, relentless nausea, but never relentless boredom. I
don't really have a point to make with this.
Score: 3
Zombie Believability: I'll be blunt with this category: it's hard to have zombie believability
when you barely get around to showing people zombies in the first place.
Score: 1
Zombie Attack Scenes: I don't remember which character it was (because by that point in
the film, I was just trying to stay awake and/or not smash my television set), but late in the
film, someone in the movie is walking home along a darkened street. S/he passes under a
bridge and looks up, to discover via the magic of shitty editing, a zombie "appear" on top of
the bridge. The zombie then jumps off of the bridge with its arms akimbo, somewhat
resembling a clumsy ninja (is that an oxymoron?) in the process. The zombie then grabs
the character, and the character runs away, unscathed. That was the most exciting zombie
attack scene in the entire movie, and that's really fucking pathetic.
Score: 1
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: At one point during City of the Living Dead, I was pretty sure that a
full-on zombie orgy was about to break out; fearing zombie attack, the non-fat fat bar owner
closes up his shop, only to then have his drinking establishment infiltrated by a horde of the
living dead. I'm not sure why they decided to show up at the bar in the first place, but there
was a large Schlitz sign in the window, so theoretically the zombies were there because
they needed to wet their whistle with a quality, low-priced brew. Regardless, the point is
that the zombies arrive and appear set to commence with full zombie orgy action. Then, out
of nowhere, the movie cuts to a completely different scene. A few minutes later, we cut back
to the bar, only to find everyone dead and the zombies shambling out. In other words, the
audience gets cheated out of the only possibly interesting sequence in the entire film. This
would be the equivalent of sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner, then blacking out, then
coming to and discovering your Uncle Joe passed out on the couch and your dog Buster
standing on the table, finishing off the sweet potatoes, of which you had none. What a rip-
off.
Score: 1
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Do slowness and boredom count as anti-zombie weapons? Oh
wait, no, they count as anti-audience weapons. My mistake. I guess the only real anti-
zombie weapon in this movie is the undead priest, because as I mentioned, when he's
"killed", all nearby zombies burst into flames. The thing is, the undead priest is also the
reason that the zombies exist in the first place, so he's like the poison and the antidote, all
rolled into one. Weird, huh? No wait, it's just stupid. Never mind.
Score: 1
Zombification Explanation: As mentioned earlier, the suicide of Father Thomas somehow
causes the dead to rise. What this has to do with witches, Massachusetts, or séances is
beyond me.
Score: 1
Zombie "Uniqueness": The few zombies that we do see in City of the Living Dead at least
behave in a somewhat unique fashion. Rather than just choking or eating their victims like
most zombies do, the undead in this film quite commonly grab people by the crowns of
their heads, and squeeze until their brains start oozing out. It's pretty cool to watch,
although towards the end of the film it happens repeatedly, probably because Lucio Fulci
figured out how to do this cheaply. I should also say that at one point, as our heroes are
traipsing through a graveyard, they hear what are presumably zombie noises that sound
remarkably similar to monkey sounds. I don't mean that they bear any resemblance to
Davey Jones (although Zombies vs. The Monkees would have been infinitely more
viewable than City of the Living Dead), but rather that the zombies sound very simian when
groaning and grunting. I'm not sure why this is, but I thought I'd mention it all the same.
Why? Because I'm trying to waste your time; or, as I call it, "pulling a Fulci."
Score: 3
Zombie Consistency: If I can beat this point into the ground: the zombies never really even
show up in this film, which I guess means that they're very consistent, right?
Score: 5
Signature Zombie: As far as I could tell, City of the Living Dead didn't have a signature
zombie, probably because, again, it didn't really have zombies, either. Blah.
Score: 1
Total Points: 60
Verdict: Whew, this one is a real stinker, people. Let me spell it out for you: avoid City of
the Living Dead at all costs. You'll be glad that you did. Ultimately, the irony of this film's
shittiness is that Lucio Fulci is considered by many to be the "number two" name in zombie
movies, behind only George Romero. And yet, this film was a complete chore to sit
through, being neither scary nor particularly interesting. The point, I think, is that Fulci is a
lot like The Olive Garden: Italian and well known, but completely bland.
Next Time: Tom Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead
| All text on this page is copyright 2007 ZombieTastic.com, and may not be reused without written consent from the author. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
