Zombie Holocaust: How the Living Dead Devoured Pop Culture (2009) Written by David Flint

If it weren't for Mr. Romero's contributions, however, it's quite possible zombies would never have penetrated the pop cultural consciousness to the degree they have. Nowadays, they're all over the place. Not just in movies and books, but in everything from music and video games to beef jerky and J.C. Penny clothing adverts. Once relegated to the plantations of Haiti, the pages of E.C. comics, and the piss-stinking theaters of 42nd Street, the zombie has long since gone mainstream in a big way.

Being as popular a member of the monster pantheon as they are, it's not surprising that there have been no shortage of books focusing on various aspects of the living dead phenomenon. There have been a number of movie review tomes and even academic analyses of the various allegories the zombie archetype could represent. But there isn't exactly a whole butt-load o' books dedicated to looking at the zombie phenomenon itself, as a whole, out there. Which is a damn shame. Because the one we do get, David Flint's Zombie Holocaust is really not the one we've been waiting for.

That's not to knock Mr. Flint himself. As one of the co-founders of Headpress (an independent alternative culture magazine and publishing house from the U.K.), it's no secret he's a fine writer. A lot better than myself. I mean, obviously. He's the one with the book deal, right? But, having said that, Zombie Holocaust still leaves much to be desired.

Before I get to the bad, though, I must commend Flint for writing this book in the first place. As I said, the horror world is in need of a book like this. And the wide berth of Flint's scope, covering, as he does, not just zombies in cinema and literature, but also in comic books, video games, music, theater, toys and novelty items, and public events like "zombie walks," is welcome. Shit! The fucker even reviews zombie porn flicks like GRUB GIRL, PORN OF THE DEAD, and NIGHT OF THE GIVING HEAD (no RE-PENETRATOR though... what the fuck?).

Not only that, but Flint goes one step beyond the call of duty by not only taking a look at the zombie subgenre itself, but also closely-related subgenres, in which the line between zombie and non-zombie is so thin as to be almost completely invisible. I'm not just talking about such pseudo-zombie flicks like DEMONS, 28 DAYS LATER, or I DRINK YOUR BLOOD either. Flint rightly acknowledges the fact that mummy movies and alien invasion pictures a la' INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS have as much a place alongside NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD as any Fulci flesheater flick.

Kudos to Flint for providing me the cheap thrill of seeing one of my favorite shot-on-video z-movies, GHOUL SCHOOL, appear in a widely available book bought from Barnes & Noble, by the way (even if he is rather dismissive towards said picture).

On the same note, however, the diversity of material that Flint looks at in dissecting the anatomy of ghoul culture is balanced out (in a bad way) by the fact that he often leaves himself too little room to delve into many of these subjects in any kind of deep or meaningful way. For instance, Michael Jackson's music video for "Thriller" gets only a brief, almost passing, mention, despite the fact that so much more could be said about the impact of what could easily be seen as a very, very big moment in the zombie's crossover from monster kid cult status to mainstream American pop culture.

It's clear that Flint is very knowledgeable and earnestly enthusiastic about the topic at hand, and both are elements of Zombie Holocaust that are worthy of appreciation. That said, it seems Zombie Holocaust favors a "quantity over quality" approach, giving us a whooooole lot of interesting items to discuss, but then avoiding doing much in the way of actual discussion. Mostly, Flint simply strings together a long list of film releases or pop culture events, in roughly chronological order, separates them into different categories (each offshoot of zombie culture is given its own chapter in the book, another mark against Flint, as he more or less summarizes the zombie-related output of one entertainment medium before moving onto another, instead of tracing the lineage of zombie culture itself and exploring it's progression and evolution over the years), and offers his own opinions.

Sadly, even Flint's opinions are fleeting and vague. Not always, mind you. But, way too much, Flint fails to offer any detailed explanation for why he has judged one entry or another in the zombie universe to be either worthy or unworthy. Typically, when he complains of a zombie movie being a dud, he doesn't really say much about why exactly said flick is supposedly such a stinker. With older films especially, Flint seems content to do nothing more than charge a picture with being "slow" and "boring," and then quickly move onto the next entry.

Now, this brings me to one of the things I had the hardest times adapting to when reading Zombie Holocaust: David Flint's opinions themselves.

Flint may have a lot of experience and excitement for the zombie genre, but many of the opinions he shares make you wonder why. For sure, there seem to be more negative opinions than positive ones. It almost makes you ask why he says he likes the zombie genre so much, when so many of its entries he seems to disregard entirely.

Admittedly, there are a zillion zombies flicks out there, and a lot of 'em are quite iffy. No doubt about that. But Flint's spot-on complaints about 1989's ZOMBIE NIGHTMARE aren't the issue here. In truth, I predict that many diehard horror nuts out there will find themselves offended, or at the very least baffled, by some of Flint's remarks. Essentially, the man pisses all over such giants of the genre as Paul Naschy, Val Lewton, Dario Argento, Lamberto Bava, and Bela Lugosi (I was particularly struck when Flint wrote that "When ham actor Bela Lugosi gives the best performance of the film, it's always a bad sign"). While he says that Lucio Fulci's movies are "empty-headed" and accuses Peter Jackson's DEAD ALIVE of being "vacuous," Flint praises the RESIDENT EVIL film franchise as an unfairly maligned example of the future of horror cinema (is this guy in-fucking-sane?!?), and he often makes the apparent mistake of equating box office success with artistic success. After all, if a movie makes a metric fuck-ton of cashy-money at the box office, it's got to be good, right?

Isn't that Michael Bay's philosophy? Hmmm.

Similarly, Flint makes such brow-furrowing claims like the one in which he says that NIGHTMARE CITY (a film which I actually do enjoy, but which most of the human population with an I.Q. number higher than their shoe size have found to be a complete bust) is "an underrated gem of Italian trash cinema," but sticks his nose up at Lamberto Bava's DEMONS. As I read his various criticisms of said film, I couldn't help but think (much the same as when I encounter some numbskull who erroneously thinks fast zombies are better than slow zombies) "man, this dude is just completely missing the whole fucking point."

Speaking of fast zombies, Flint is one of those horror fans who actually liked the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. Ugh. I know there are quite a few of you such people out there, so I'm going to keep my bile to myself... but I will ask this: what the fuck are you people smoking?

Then again, I adore such unrepentant schlock as ZOMBIE LAKE, PORNO HOLOCAUST, and BURIAL GROUND: NIGHTS OF TERROR (all films that Mr. Flint, as well as most of the world, cruelly take a huge, steaming dump on... heartless bastards, all of you! ::sniffle::), so who am I to talk?

Of course, I'm not entirely at odds with Zombie Holocaust's author. There are a few points upon which I cheerfully, wholeheartedly agree with Flint (such as when he justifiably bashes disasters like the Will Smith-starring I AM LEGEND, 2007's THE INVASION, and Uwe Boll's signature trainwreck HOUSE OF THE DEAD for being the hollow clusterfucks and missed opportunities they were, or when he champions undervalued cult classics like PSYCHOMANIA, TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD, RAW FORCE, RABID, ZOMBIE STRIPPERS, INVISIBLE INVADERS, THE LAST MAN ON EARTH, PLANET TERROR, SHATTER DEAD, POULTRYGEIST, SHIVERS, WITCHFINDER GENERAL, THE LIVING DEAD AT MANCHESTER MORGUE, I DRINK YOUR BLOOD, the triple-X spoof NIGHT OF THE GIVING HEAD, the Pakistan-lensed HELL'S GROUND, Jean Rollin's THE LIVING DEAD GIRL, the original THE CRAZIES, and Hammer's brilliant PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES, a motion picture which anticipated the future of zombie cinema a full two years before Romero unleashed NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD upon the world). But the moments where Flint throws me for a loop... he does so in spades.

The most maddening thing is that, as with so much of the book, too many of Flint's strongly held, admittedly provocative viewpoints go unexplained. He rarely argues his point as to why he feels one way or another beyond the most superficial degree. When he does, though, it's often quite admirable. By a way of an example, I'll say that, although I disagree with Flint's take on Val Lewton's horror output, I can appreciate the angle from which he views things, I can see some of the truth in it, and I enjoyed seeing him explain his stance in such a thought-out and passionate manner. Likewise, at one point, Flint actually has the nerve to suggest that Romero's sociopolitical commentary is somehow one of the original DAWN OF THE DEAD's weaknesses! I told you this guy was ballsy. Yet, while I couldn't disagree more, I give him credit for having the guts to openly proclaim his ideas and then make sound arguments for them. The whole "sound argument" thingamajig is the one thing he just doesn't do enough in Zombie Holocaust.

In some ways, I greatly respect Flint, in general, for unabashedly voicing such unpopular opinions. At the same time, though, I can't help but cock my eyebrow and ask if this guy is serious. Umberto Lenzi's NIGHTMARE CITY gets more praise than both Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and Romero's DAY OF THE DEAD? Really?!? RESIDENT EVIL and DOOM (yes, the movie starring The Rock) have more kind words said about them here than Jacques freakin' Tourneur's I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE? Really?!? Are you kidding me?!? C'mon!!!

To be perfectly frank, David Flint strikes me as the type of person more easily impressed by flashy gunfights and fiery explosions than by actual filmcraft. I don't mean to come off as pretentious or anything but... there, I said it.

Meh. No accounting for taste, I suppose. Que sera sera.

Personal differences aside, if I had to levy one criticism towards Mr. Flint as to why Zombie Holocaust was such a disappointment, I would have to go back to the fact that he simply moves through things too quickly, giving neither himself enough space to properly explore the subjects he brings up in an in-depth manner nor the audience enough time or memorable content to fully assimilate the information imparted so as to develop a viewpoint of our own, let alone be swayed by Flint's viewpoint. Personal taste is one thing. As much as I may disagree with David Flint's opinions about the films of Lucio Fulci and Paul Naschy (whose oeuvre he sacrilegiously argues was nearly devoid of artistic merit), he has a right to them, and the fact that those opinions are strictly at odds with my own does not make Zombie Holocaust a bad book (although, I admit, it will probably make me less likely to revisit this work in the future very much). In all honesty, one of the things I've always loved about reading (and writing) reviews is comparing and contrasting my own opinions and ideas with someone else's and the (usually) fun debates that pop up as a result, as well as the possibility of gaining new insights thanks to someone else's unique perspective. So our differences in opinion do nothing to harm Zombie Holocaust's quality. What does harm Zombie Holocaust's quality, more than anything, is its lack of depth.

Who knows? Maybe Flint was strictly limited in word or page count, and so was forced to turn Zombie Holocaust into an exhaustive overview instead of an insightful, detailed examination of zombie culture. Whatever the case may be, in the end what we are left with is essentially a blood-splattered gut-muncher laundry list, a big catalog of all the zombie movies/books/games/miscellanea/etc. out there. Serious horror fans and zombiephiles are likely to be let down, as they will find precious little in the way of undiscovered country here. Zombie Holocaust will find a better home in the hands of a horror/zombie novice, someone just getting into the genre and looking for a something to point 'em in the right direction, something to give 'em an idea of what's out there and where to go in search of more living dead goodness. It's like "Undead 101" or "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Ghouls."

As it is, Zombie Holocaust is a populist-minded, very honest, verrrry blunt, somewhat misguided, and extremely opinionated work. David Flint's opinions are almost shockingly contrary to the accepted norm, which can be frustrating, but it's hardly a major flaw. The major flaw is Flint's evident disinterest in doing anything more than simply scratching the surface, both in regards to his own critiques and, more significantly, the entire subject upon which Zombie Holocaust focus is supposed to be placed. That's the key word here: "focus." 'Cause this is one guide to ghouls which could've sure as shit used a little.

Chas Balun, where are you when we need you?

Until next slime...
Stay sick!
Your pickled pal,
William Weird.