DVD Review: TARGETS

Title: TARGETS ~aka~ BEFORE I DIE

Year of Release—Film: 1968

Year of Release—DVD: 2003

DVD Label: Paramount



THE MOVIE

When you think of the films of Roger Corman, this probably isn’t the first one that comes to mind. In fact, most fans would be hard pressed to identify this as one of Corman’s (famous for ultra-cheap creature designs and period Poe adaptations…) titles. However, not only does it belong to him, it just might be the best movie to list “Roger Corman” anywhere in the credits. Though the film is far from the typical Corman production, how it came about is vintage Roger.

With Boris Karloff under contract for two days worth of work, Corman told Director Peter Bogdanovich that he could make whatever film he desired, as long as he: One, used up the time left on Karloff’s contract, and two, used stock footage from THE TERROR (1963) to save money. Bogdanovich came up with this, an excellent film and Karloff’s finest performance of latter portion of his career.

The plot is layered and complex, based in part on the Charles Whitman case in Texas. On August 1st, 1966, Whitman, a deranged Architectural student at the University of Texas in Austin climbed to the observation deck of the University Clock Tower with a stockpile of weapons, food, and ammunition and proceeded to kill 14 people, while wounding 30 or so. Police and armed citizens finally stormed the tower, killing Whitman. Bogdanovich skillfully weaves this plot thread with one concerning the decision by an elderly Horror star (Karloff, in a perfect performance…) to retire from public life, following one last live appearance at a southern California Drive-In. The two threads run in their paths, seemingly unconnected until brought together at the last.

This is a great movie, and it easily qualifies as Karloff’s best work since 1945’s THE BODY-SNATCHER. It should, as he was basically portraying himself. It’s difficult not to draw parallels between Karloff’s Byron Orlok, and John Wayne’s John Bernard Books in his final film, THE SHOOTIST. Both men are in the end portraying, if not themselves, then the public’s perception of who they are, or rather, were. There’s a poignancy to both performances, a sadness that transcends the events of the movies themselves. We, the viewers, know that both men, both icons, will soon be gone, and this time there will be no director yelling “Cut, print!” and setting up for the next shot.



THE DISC

The Paramount DVD is the high-quality offering you’d expect from a major distributor, and really is without flaw. The transfer is beautiful and clear, presented in anamorphic widescreen. There are even subtitles; always a factor in my enjoyment of a disc. Overall, it’s a great DVD treatment.



THE SPECIAL FEATURES

Though the list of special features is not long, what’s there is well-done and informative. There’s an introductory documentary featuring the screenwriter / director, Peter Bogdanovich, discussing the making of the film, and while there’s nothing earth-shattering in the short, it is an interesting look at one of this troubled director’s earliest works.

Likewise the commentary, also by Bogdanovich, contains little that might be revelatory. While it’s interesting enough, listening to a one-person commentary, no matter how informative, can be too much like attending a film-school lecture to be truly enjoyable.

Personally, I would have enjoyed a few deleted scenes, or maybe reminiscences from cast and crew about working with the Master himself.



IN CONCLUSION

Though this is not the usual type of film that I review, I felt it was important enough to discuss it here, especially in light of it’s historical context. Few will argue that Boris Karloff, in his prime, was the brightest star in the Horror firmament. He certainly was one of the most gifted actors to ever work in genre films, and this performance does much to confirm that opinion. With a $9.99 list price (Deep Discount DVD has it for as low as $5.99…) you can’t afford NOT to own this one.

The Universal Monsters: How Universal Studios Created the Horror Film

[Ed. Note: This is it—the first article I wrote for Sean Kotz at Creaturescape.com, and the first article I wrote as the Unimonster. It’s rough; though it’s not been a drastic improvement, my writing has gotten somewhat better in the nearly six years since I wrote it. I hope you overlook the flaws and enjoy the look back into the Unimonster’s past.]

How Universal Studios created the Horror film.

A pretty bold thesis, considering there were no shortage of such films from other studios in the years following the end of the First World War. THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (released in 1920), NOSFERATU (1922), and METROPOLIS (1927) are all considered seminal works in the genre, and rightly so. As early as 1910, Thomas Edison’s motion picture studio produced a version of Mary Shelley’s classic novel, FRANKENSTEIN. By 1918, no fewer than 3 movies featuring mummies had been made, and between 1908 and 1920, at least ten versions of Robert Louis Stevenson’s DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE were produced, including the superior Barrymore version of 1920. So how, you may be asking in righteous indignation, can I claim that Universal Studios created the horror film?

Simple… Universal took a nascent genre, one that, while having drawn its first breath was still in its infancy, and in the space of fifteen to twenty short years, transformed it into a staple of the movie-goer’s diet. Carl Laemmle’s Universal created horror films the same way that Ray Kroc’s McDonald’s created fast food: with the franchise.

Universal’s rise to horror prominence didn’t occur overnight, and it certainly wasn’t accomplished without resistance. In the early 1920’s, Universal was considered a minor player in Hollywood, nowhere near an equal to studios such as M-G-M or Warner Brothers. The studio made low budget films, primarily westerns, with poorly paid contract actors and actresses.

Then, following the success of 1923’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, Laemmle was persuaded to finance the studio’s first big budget film: Rupert Julian’s THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). Starring arguably the best actor of his time, Lon Chaney, this adaptation of the classic Gaston Leroux novel opened to huge critical and financial success, and went a long way towards convincing Hollywood that horror just might have a place in motion pictures. Many hold that, had the Academy Awards existed in 1925, Chaney would have walked away with the Best Actor award, and the film would have undoubtedly been Best Picture.

That success was due in part to fantastic marketing on the part of Universal, whose executives knew the value of publicity, especially the free kind. No photographs were allowed of Chaney in make-up, except for some production stills that were circulated with the Phantom’s face redacted out (very similar marketing methods were used six years later, during the production of FRANKENSTEIN).

The popularity enjoyed by THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA inspired Universal to look for other horror properties that would be suitable for filming, and their attention turned, quite naturally, to the two most popular genre novels of their time, Mary Shelley’s FRANKENSTEIN, and Bram Stoker’s DRACULA.

While F. W. Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece, NOSFERATU, had been based (without permission) directly on Stoker’s novel, Universal, now under the control of Carl Laemmle, Jr., who had received the studio for his twenty-first birthday, wanted to produce the version made famous as a stage play; this version featured a more romantic, less ghoulish interpretation of the infamous count. With Tod Browning slated to direct, it was widely assumed (indeed, ‘Papa’ Laemmle practically demanded,) that the star of the film would be Lon Chaney, who had worked with the director in several films.

However, Chaney’s death in 1930 meant that someone else would get the job. After an extensive search for a replacement, it was decided to give a screen test to the Hungarian actor who had had great success with the Broadway release of the play. Though he was no one’s first choice for the role, his willingness to take the part at a quarter of the salary he could’ve gotten clinched the deal. It would become the role of a lifetime for a forty-nine year old, unknown actor named Bela Lugosi.

DRACULA, released in February of 1931, catapulted Lugosi to stardom, and helped give Universal Studios it’s only profitable year during the Depression, though Laemmle, Sr.’s financial bad habits continued to insure that Universal would not be in fiscally sound health. Though the critics weren’t quite as kind to it as they had been to THE PHANTOM, the public loved it, and flocked to the theaters to see the supernatural mystery and sensual, subtle eroticism of the vampire. Lugosi so captivated the imaginations fans that from that moment on, vampires have been set in a mold for which he is the model. Until recently, it was rare to see any portrayal of a vampire that differed significantly from what I would call the ‘High Society’ version that Lugosi, for all intents, patented.

DRACULA set Universal apart as a producer of the horror film, and made the studio a major force in Hollywood. But the year was still young, and, in November, the film would be released that would forever cement the studio’s place in the history of the genre.

James Whale’s FRANKENSTEIN has been hailed as perhaps the greatest horror film ever; certainly the best of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Though Whale’s direction is impeccable and the story is excellent, it is the performance of a forty-four year old English-born Canadian named Boris Karloff that elevates this film to such lofty heights, and establishes Universal as the premier player in the genre. A long-time veteran of silent films, Karloff was able, even from under Jack Pierce’s heavy make-up, to convey more emotion and pathos with a glance and a growl than most actors can with a ten-minute soliloquy.

Once again, Universal’s marketing department went into high gear promoting the film, with rumors circulated about that Karloff’s appearance was so frightening that sensitive cast and crew members fainted at the sight of him, and that Mae Clark, who played Henry Frankenstein’s bride Elizabeth, refused to work with him. The secrecy associated with THE PHANTOM returned for this film; as Karloff wasn’t listed in the credits, the actor who portrayed the Monster simply being identified as “?”.

Having enjoyed a phenomenal 1931, the studio needed little encouragement to return to the horror well. John Balderson, a reporter who had been present at the opening of King Tut’s tomb (and who had written the play on which DRACULA had been based), supplied a story involving the discovery of a cursed tomb, an undead mummy, and his eternal love for an Egyptian princess. 1932’s THE MUMMY, directed by Karl Freund, was another showcase for Karloff's talents, and while the story was little more than a rehashing of the plot from DRACULA, (indeed, in what would become one of the studio’s trademarks, many of the cast of DRACULA appeared in THE MUMMY) Karloff’s performance as Ardath Bey carried the film, and made it more than successful, if less than original.

This was followed by films such as THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933), THE BLACK CAT (released in 1934, it was the first of six on-screen pairings of Karloff and Lugosi), THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935) and DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, (1936). But it was James Whale’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, released in 1935, that truly gave birth to the horror franchise. Considered by some to be even better than FRANKENSTEIN, this film gave the Monster a voice as well as a (reluctant) bride. But public opinion, as expressed by politicians and newspapers, was turning against horror films. Images and themes that to modern viewers seem mild and inoffensive shocked and outraged many critics in the 1930’s. Following outcries by media and religious groups over 1935’s THE RAVEN, starring Karloff and Lugosi, among other films, the first half of Horror’s Golden Age came to an end.

By the late 1930’s, Universal, no longer the property of the Laemmles, had fallen on hard times; and, in what would become a pattern that continues to this day, fell back on the monsters to regain financial health and well-being. Though they had decried horror films, claiming they wouldn’t make another one, the continuing popularity of DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN convinced the new ownership that new horror films could be financially viable, and a continuation of the Frankenstein saga was quickly produced. SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) was Karloff’s last appearance as the Monster, and featured Basil Rathbone as the son of his late creator, as well as Bela Lugosi as Ygor, his second-most famous role.

Universal then saw the wisdom of further Monster pictures, and quickly developed the horror film into a commodity that could be mass-produced, much like Henry Ford’s Model T. And just as the Model T made automobiles affordable for the common man, Universal’s Horror Factory insured that the public received a steady diet of the monsters they had grown to love. From 1939 to 1945, more than a dozen films were released featuring Universal’s growing stable of monsters. Many good: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942); THE MUMMY’S TOMB (1942); SON OF DRACULA (1943); HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944). Some not so good: THE INVISIBLE MAN’S REVENGE (1944); THE MUMMY’S GHOST (1944); HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). A few just plain bad: INVISIBLE WOMAN (1940); THE MUMMY’S CURSE (1944).
And one unforgettable classic: THE WOLF-MAN (1941).

One of Universal’s most popular movies, THE WOLF-MAN came on the scene just as the second half of Horror’s Golden Age was beginning to take off. The war in Europe, increasing economic prosperity, and changing tastes were going to put the monsters out of business, according to the critics. Instead, they were entering the period of their greatest popularity, due primarily to Universal’s first truly sympathetic monster. Audiences loved Lon Chaney, Jr. as Larry Talbot, cursed by the bite of a werewolf to an eternal, nightmarish existence, more beast than man. Directed by George Waggoner, it provided a fresh perspective on the monsters; one from the monster’s point of view. Within five years, Chaney, Jr. would become Universal’s biggest star, having portrayed every major monster in their stable.

And, reasoned the Universal executives, if one monster was a success, what would happen with two? A chance remark by Curt Siodmak, the screenwriter of THE WOLF-MAN, provided the spark, and thus was born FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN (1942). Now, there was a rivalry, and the two biggest stars of Universal’s line-up would do battle twice more before the end of World War II, in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944); and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945). By now, the Universal Horror film was a set formula, almost a patented recipe. It didn’t matter who directed what film, or who played which monster, or even that the script be good. If the formula was followed, then the fans would continue to come. Horror films had completed the transition from hand-crafted works of art for the few, to mass-produced, assembly-line manufactured goods for everyone. Sixty years later, things haven’t changed all that much, have they? Movie franchises such as FRIDAY THE 13TH, HALLOWEEN, and NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. continue to demonstrate the truth of that.

Did Universal make the very first horror film? No, of course not. Henry Ford didn’t build the first car. McDonald’s didn’t make the first hamburger. But Universal did do what they did . . . moreover, they did it better than anyone, made it available to everyone, and transformed it from something rare and exotic, to something that we all could enjoy. And in so doing, they’ve inspired generations of fans who will never forget the simple joy of being scared.

DVD Review: FRANKENSTEIN—75th Anniversary Edition

Title: FRANKENSTEIN—75th Anniversary Edition

Year of Release—Film: 1931

Year of Release—DVD: 2006

DVD Label: Universal Studios Home Entertainment


It is by no means hyperbole to describe James Whale’s 1931 classic FRANKENSTEIN as the most important Horror Film in the genre’s history. While the release of Tod Browning’s DRACULA nine months previously had created the American Horror Film, as well as established Universal Studios as the Horror studio, it was FRANKENSTEIN’s release in November 1931 that gave the genre what it needed for lasting permanence… a cinematic masterpiece.

Though I love the Browning DRACULA, and recognize its importance, it doesn’t compare to FRANKENSTEIN in terms of script and direction. Whale’s direction has a style, a fluidity, and a power that is missing from Browning’s wooden, stagey direction on DRACULA.
A comparison of the scenes that serve to introduce us to the respective monster in each film illustrates the difference in directorial style. In DRACULA, we first see Lugosi as the Count as he greets Renfield at the top of the stairway. The scene is static and uninvolving; it is left to the power of Lugosi’s performance and presence, and one line—“Listen to them… children of the night. What music they make!” to impress upon the viewer a sense of the impending evil about to descend upon poor Renfield.

Whale, conversely, was able to project the power and significance of the moment well before his creature even entered the scene. As Henry Frankenstein and Dr. Waldeman converse quietly about Frankenstein’s “failure” with the monster, you hear, softly at first, in the background, but growing louder, the shuffling footsteps of the monster. Where Browning treated sound almost as an afterthought on DRACULA, Whale wove sound into the fabric of the film, making it part of the experience. Then the door opens, and a huge, misshapen figure lumbers into the chamber, and his face is revealed in a series of increasingly close jump cuts. When originally shown, this was considered so frightening that theaters warned those with weak constitutions to avoid the film. While that was largely marketing hype, 1930’s style, there’s no denying the power and impact of the scene, even 75 years later. Nor can you deny the effectiveness and quality of the film as a whole.

There’s nothing to say about this two-disc set that I haven’t already said about its fraternal twin, the DRACULA 75th Anniversary Edition. The artwork on the case is gorgeous; the print is beautiful; it’s truly a great set.

While not as loaded as the DRACULA 75th Anniversary Edition, fans have plenty to choose from in this two-disc set. The best of those choices is the documentary KARLOFF: THE GENTLE MONSTER. This biographical look at Boris Karloff is far too short to do justice to its subject, but you do get a good sense of Karloff, the actor. I wish they had spent some time exploring William Pratt, the cultured son of British aristocrats, and how he became Horror’s most recognizable and revered icon.

Also included is the Monster Tracks feature that I discussed in the DRACULA review, as well as UNIVERSAL HORRORS, the Kenneth Branagh-narrated documentary that explores every facet of the Universal Monster Movies of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Other features from the FRANKENSTEIN Legacy set are included, guaranteeing you get your money’s worth on this set.
This is without question the ultimate DVD treatment of Whale’s FRANKENSTEIN thus far released, and is a superb example of just what can be done with a 75-year old film. This is almost universally recognized as the greatest Horror film ever produced, and you cannot consider yourself even a casual fan of the genre if you don’t have this film in your collection. While the $26.95 list price is expensive, at least by my standards, its well worth the price to own this movie, and you can find it cheaper. Deep Discount has it for less than $20, a significant savings.

Whatever the price where you find it, buy it. No one should miss seeing, or owning, this movie.

10 Things I just don’t Get

Everyone has certain things that they just do not comprehend; things that, for one reason or another, just goes right over their head. The Unimonster’s no different… indeed, considering how old-fashioned I am, it’s safe to say that there’s a veritable multitude of pop-culture icons and references that I don’t get, and hopefully, never will. I am, thankfully, immune to the dubious charms of Paris Hilton; would gleefully shoot myself in the foot to avoid trying out for any reality show; and should the day ever come when I stand in a line to pay four and a half dollars to order something called a “vente, non-fat, decaf, caramel mochacino…” then the day has arrived when I find the tallest building around and jump.

So were I to list all that baffles me regarding things that are popular and why, I could quite easily fill volumes. So let’s confine ourselves to our chosen genre, and focus in on ten things, in no special order, that never fail to surprise and amaze me in the world of Horror, Sci-Fi, and Fantasy films.

1.) The PHANTASM movies: When I first saw PHANTASM at the theater, sometime in my fourteenth year, I was impressed… somewhat. An original story; cheesy, but interesting, Special Effects; and a genuinely refreshing cast made me hope for the best. Not being a Horror novice, even at that age, I could see the potential of the story, even though the producers obviously couldn’t afford to realize that potential. But I could tell they had a good idea, and wasn’t disappointed with the end result. Unfortunately, even when more money was plowed into the franchise, that potential just never seemed to be reached. None of the three sequels have managed to equal the first, though PHANTASM II (1988) came close. Sadder still, the original loses more luster on each subsequent viewing, to the point where it’s simply become a bad movie.

2.) Post-Modern Werewolves & Vampires: Can someone please tell me why it’s necessary for the undead to travel about packing more heat than a Snoop Dogg concert? The trend that began with 1987’s NEAR DARK shows no signs of petering out, not with BLADE, its two moderately successful sequels; the UNDERWORLD franchise; and a dozen other rip-offs and low-budget imitations. Now believe me, I’m all for an armed populace… but when you can transform into an eight-foot tall beast, with six-inch claws and fangs, doesn’t that kinda eliminate the need for Smith & Wesson??

3.) Horror & Politics: To say that there is a certain political slant in Hollywood is an understatement, and for me not to realize that the majority of filmmakers share a political stance that’s diametrically opposed to my own would be naïveté bordering on idiocy. Still, I would like to think that I could watch a movie about re-animated corpses without getting a political diatribe spewed at me. Now, I’m not talking about some subtle sub-text, such as Romero’s LAND OF THE DEAD, and how the story evolved following 9-11. Screenwriters and directors are human; they’re going to draw on their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions when they create. It’s the blatant, obvious slap-in-the-face attacks on everyone whose opinion differs from theirs that bother me. The Showtime series Masters of Horror is a perfect case-in-point. On the face of it, this is a great idea, one whose time has come. Offer the genre’s greatest directors and writers the opportunity to produce a short film, free from the constrictions of the studio process. Most, such as Dario Argento, Takashi Miike, and John Landis have taken the opportunity to create genuinely good Horror. A few, however, have taken the chance to launch into a political screed, unconcerned about offending fans who don’t share their views. While I applaud Showtime for creating an environment where Horror can flourish, it’s off-putting, to say the least, to try to sit through a program that’s attacking your very core beliefs.

4.) “Non-Horror” Horror: Recently, it’s become fashionable for major stars, actors such as De Niro, Cruise, and Cage, to try their hands at scaring audiences out of their hard-earned dollars. Now, ordinarily, I’m in favor of anything that leads to more Horror Films being made, and far be it for me to say that A-list actors and actresses shouldn’t work in Horror. But I fail to see why, with such a massive investment involved in bringing that much star power to bear, no thought is given to actually making movies that are scary… or even good. HIDE AND SEEK; WAR OF THE WORLDS; THE WICKER MAN… Not a lot there to justify the expense, huh? What’s worse is the situation where directors become involved in remaking classic horror films in order to place some sort of personal stamp on it. From Spielberg’s WAR OF THE WORLDS to Neil LaBute’s abysmal remake of THE WICKER MAN, Hollywood seems convinced that they can improve great films by removing everything that made them great. Steven Spielberg is possibly the greatest living director, certainly the greatest American filmmaker since John Ford, but not even he could improve upon perfection. George Pal’s WAR OF THE WORLDS is a perfect film for its type and time; the remake, simply put, isn’t.

5.) Stephen King: First of all, let me say that King is the greatest Horror author of the past thirty years, bar none. He may be the greatest ever, though that would be a difficult point for which to argue. “IT”, “Pet Sematary”, “Salem’s Lot”, “Needful Things”… these and many other great works have sprung from the mind of this man, and the genre has been much richer for it. That I get perfectly well, and that I do not deny. But the Stephen King I don’t get is the King who gave us THE TOMMYKNOCKERS, and SLEEPWALKERS, and KINGDOM HOSPITAL. It seems as though King will allow virtually any project to carry his name, no matter how tangentially he’s connected to it; and as for his own writing, there’s no doubt that the 1999 accident that nearly claimed his life has had a profound effect on him. Can he return to his Horror roots, or does he even wish to, are questions that those of us who love his earlier work are waiting to have answered.

6.) Why Keanu Reeves is a Star: Seriously, anyone have a clue? He was absolutely horrible in Francis Ford Coppola’s DRACULA, and his performance in 2005’s CONSTANTINE was even worse… so how does he become one of the most in-demand actors in Hollywood? Personally, I think it involves the blood of a chicken and some whispered phrases in Latin.

7.) Why Bruce Campbell Isn’t: Even if you aren’t a fan of the EVIL DEAD trilogy, (and truth to tell, I’m not…) then BUBBA HO-TEP should be enough to convince you that the man with the chin has some serious acting chops. His over-the-top performances as Ash in Sam Raimi’s cult classic EVIL DEAD movies are, in my opinion, the only reason that those films are regarded as highly as they are. Moreover, his spectacular turn as an elderly Elvis Presley, battling a soul-consuming mummy in a Texas nursing home, was a joy to behold and in a righteous world would have earned Campbell an Oscar nomination, at the very least.

8.) Hammer’s CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF: I know, I know… a certified, gold-plated classic, from my second-favorite studio—how can I not enjoy this movie? Simple… the film is slow and uninvolving, the story is weak, the acting is sub-par, especially compared with most of Hammer’s productions, and, while the Werewolf design is excellent, it’s on-screen for such a brief amount of time that it’s wasted. It’s not a bad movie, really… it’s simply not a very good one. Expectations for Hammer films… especially the early ones… are high. This movie just doesn’t meet them.

9.) Universal Studios: Speaking of favorite studios… It’s not that I don’t understand the studio from which I gained my nom de plume; I fully understand greed, tight-fistedness, and a reluctance to remember from whence you came. Fans of the great Universal Horrors have long since grown accustomed to being ignored, insulted, passed over, and forgotten about by the studio, only to be shaken down anew when Universal hits hard financial times and trots our favorite cash cows out for another round of “milk the fan.” The latest round of this began four years ago, with the admittedly superb Legacy collections, and has continued unabated, with the Lugosi Franchise collection, the Karloff franchise collection, the Ultimate Sci-Fi collection, and the Hammer Horror collection. Just last year, we saw the release of the DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN 75th Anniversary editions. What I don’t get is, is this a new attitude from Universal regarding our beloved monsters, whether due to the new ownership by NBC or an increased responsiveness to the fan? Or is this just another temporary fling, and is the rug soon to be pulled out from beneath the feet of loyal fans everywhere? Earlier, I mentioned the 75th Anniversary sets of DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN. Last year, however, they failed to give us a similar treatment for the Mummy’s 75th celebration… only to put it on the schedule for this year, in support of the third Brendan Fraser MUMMY film. I don’t know the answer to my question… but if thirty years of being a fan of Universal has taught me anything, it’s that no matter how bountiful the years of plenty are, there’s always a long stretch of lean around the corner.

10.) Sideshow Toys: Can we please stipulate that when the average price of a company’s product line exceeds the $100 mark, they have to take the word “Toy” out of their name? Seriously, there are few companies that do the monsters as well as Sideshow Toys… but who can afford them? Recently, I was browsing through their website, and was struck by the sheer cost of some of their figures, including a life-sized Robby the Robot… for a staggering $17,000! I’ve never paid that much for a car!

These are some of the things that I just can’t understand. There’s more, much more in fact. How Uwe Boll keeps getting directing jobs; why Jessica Alba won’t respond to my marriage proposals; why I’m the only person in America who doesn’t think they belong on AMERICAN IDOL. Like I said… a world of things I just don’t get.

Universal’s Unsung Monster: The Mummy Kharis

For those of you totally unfamiliar with me, you may take it as an article of faith that I’m something of a fan of the classic Universal Horrors. Put simply, there is a reason that my nom de plume is Unimonster. I enjoy them all immensely… from Frankenstein’s Monster and Dracula, to the Giant Mantis and the Gill-Man. And of all the great creatures that sprang forth from the storied Universal backlot, none are dearer to me than those reanimated reprobates from the Valley of the Kings, Im-Ho-tep / Ardeth Bey, Kharis, Klaris, and Imhotep.

While I love all eight films featuring these bandaged baddies, the four featuring Kharis—THE MUMMY’S HAND; THE MUMMY’S TOMB; THE MUMMY’S GHOST; and THE MUMMY’S CURSE—are by far my favorite of Universal’s “Big Four” Monster films, and save for Edgar Ulmer’s 1934 masterpiece THE BLACK CAT, my favorite classic horror films, period.

Now, I’m not denigrating the Daddy of the clan, Karl Freund’s 1932 classic, THE MUMMY; nor would I dare to compare Karloff’s brilliant performance as Im-Ho-Tep / Ardeth Bey to Tom Tyler’s creation of the Mummy Kharis eight years later, in THE MUMMY’S HAND. Not even Lon Chaney Jr., when he took up the role in 1942’s THE MUMMY’S TOMB, could approach the quality of Karloff’s acting. I love the original film, and recognize it for what it is: One of the truly great Horror Films to come from Universal in the early ‘30’s, alongside DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE INVISIBLE MAN, and THE BLACK CAT. The one thing it isn’t, though, is FUN.

The Kharis films have a quality common to all of the Universal Horror Films of the 1940’s… they are incredibly fun movies. THE MUMMY’S TOMB might not be studied in film school the way the 1932 film is, but it’s a joy to watch. To sit in front of a screen, with a big bag of popcorn and a bunch of your buddies or maybe your best girl, munching away as a host of Universal’s best sent chills down your spine… that’s why these films were made. Whale, Ulmer, and Freund were trying to make art. Cabanne, Young, and LeBorg were trying to make a buck, and to do that, they needed Asses in seats. They couldn’t do that without making movies that entertained, and these movies did that, in spades. Not just the Mummy movies; all of Universal’s Horror Films of these period were hugely entertaining… and still are.

However, from the time I first saw Kharis lumbering across the 13” screen on my older sister’s black and white portable, I’ve been a devoted acolyte of the High Priests of Karnak. None of Universal’s classic horrors (and I’ve seen them all…) can come close to the thrills, chills and plain old good times that these four films inspire.

I’m not sure if it’s the Egyptian theme, or the on-screen terror bred by the reanimated corpse of an ancient Mummy haunting a sleepy New England college town, but they connect with me in a way that few films do. There are times (not often I’ll admit, but it happens…) when I’m just not in the mood to watch a Horror Film; but that never applies to Kharis. I can put my Legacy disc in the player and watch all four, beginning to end, losing all track of time. So much so that, for a few hours, I’m ten again, sitting in my sister’s room on a quiet Saturday evening, watching the helpless residents of Mapleton being stalked by the vengeful Kharis on a TV screen the size of a dinner plate.

Are these movies perfect? No, far from it. They’re full of atmosphere, the acting is good, the photography, at least early in the series, is excellent, and the movies are long on action. But they are also weakly plotted and scripted, with incomprehensible plot twists and continuity errors, including how two Mummies that disappear into a bog in Massachusetts can be found in the next picture in the Bayou country of Louisiana. The photography also suffered in the latter films, particularly in the Day-for-Night process shots.

But none of that mattered to a ten-year old Monsterkid, and none of it matters to me now. I don’t watch these movies to critique them; I watch them to be entertained, and just as they did more than sixty years ago, or thirty for that matter, they never fail to accomplish that.

After THE MUMMY’S CURSE, in 1944, there was an eleven-year gap before Abbott and Costello, in their last film for Universal (and next to last film, period…) journeyed down the Nile to do battle with the Mummy Klaris, a two-bit, pot-bellied imitation of Kharis. The movie is far from the duo’s best work, and the era of Mummy movies at Universal came to an end. It would be forty-four years before the studio would revisit Mummies, but they would do so with a vengeance, with Stephen Sommers’ 1999 winner THE MUMMY. This was followed up by THE MUMMY’S RETURN two years later.

Nor has Universal been the only studio to capitalize on the popularity of the Mummy as a monster. Several production companies, most notably Britain’s Hammer Films, saw the value in exploiting the public’s fascination with the legends and lore of Ancient Egypt. It is interesting to note that, when Hammer decided to reinvent Universal’s classic Mummy movies, it was Kharis they chose to emulate, and not Karloff’s Im-Ho-Tep.

All of these movies are good, entertaining, and enjoyable… but none as much as the four Kharis films. When I think of the Mummy, it’s not Karloff’s cultured tones, Chris Lee’s power and violence, or Arnold Vosloo’s Special Effects that come to mind. It’s Tom Tyler defending the tomb of his lost love Ananka, George Zucco passing the secret of the Tanna leaves on to Turhan Bey, and Lon Chaney Jr. hunting the survivors of the Banning expedition through the streets of a peaceful New England village to exact his revenge.The four films featuring Kharis were good enough when I was ten, and they’re still good enough today.

A Star for Mr. Pierce, Revisited

One of the reasons that the great Universal classic Monsters are the great Universal classic Monsters is their iconic, trademarked, licensed-to-the-hilt look. From Karloff’s Frankenstein’s Monster, to Chaney’s Wolf-Man, the monsters had one common denominator, one extraordinarily gifted individual responsible for bringing those creatures from sketchpad to silver screen: Jack Pierce.

Born Janus Piccoulas in 1889, Pierce emigrated from his native Greece as a young boy. As a teen-ager, he dreamed of playing baseball, and had some success at the semi-pro level, but his small size prevented him from achieving his goal. Drifting to California, he found work in the fledgling film industry, first as an actor and stagehand, then moving into the make-up department at Universal. One of his first big projects was 1931’s DRACULA; though Lugosi did his own make-up, there’s no doubt that Pierce, as head of the department, would’ve had a say in the finished product. However, it would be Universal’s next big Horror feature that established Pierce’s reputation as a creative genius. That feature was James Whale’s FRANKENSTEIN.

The studio’s original concept for the film version of Mary Shelley’s celebrated novel was to be directed by Robert Florey, starring Lugosi as the Monster. A test make-up was done for this version; however, no footage or stills have survived. Descriptions by those involved would seem to indicate a marked resemblance to Paul Weneger’s 1920 classic DER GOLEM, with a heavy, sculptured, clay-like appearance. Whale had Pierce start from scratch, and he and Boris Karloff, who had replaced Lugosi when the latter had refused the role, worked for hours each night for three weeks perfecting the design. Simply put, they succeeded, and Karloff’s Monster became perhaps the most recognizable film icon ever.

For the next sixteen years, Pierce was responsible for the monsters that we still know and love today. Im-ho-tep / Ardeth Bey, The Werewolf of London, Bateman, Ygor, Kharis, The Wolf-Man… all these and more were given life by his hand, working with little more than collodion, yak hair, and spirit gum. After World War II ended, Universal merged with International Pictures, and a new philosophy was in place. Long gone were the days when Carl Laemmle Sr. ran the studio as if it were just a large family shop. He had given Pierce the job of heading the make-up department with nothing more than a handshake to seal the deal, and, in early 1947 Universal-International took the job back with even less ceremony. Though Pierce remained active in film, he never recovered from this stunning betrayal, and died in obscurity in 1968.

Though few knew his name at the time of his death, Horror fans today recognize the man’s incredible talent, and the debt that Hollywood in general, and Universal Studios in particular, owe this diminutive master of make-up. One fan in particular has worked for several years to see that debt paid.

Scott Essman is perhaps the foremost expert on Jack Pierce, and has, for many years, been the driving force behind an effort to get Universal to recognize it’s obligation to Pierce with a star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame. Though he’s brought them nearly to the point of following through before, always something has arisen that was a “higher priority” for the Publicity department, and the money earmarked for Pierce’s star was shifted to other purposes. Though the amount required isn’t small, (somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 or so…) neither is it a sum that should prove daunting to a studio still making a healthy profit from Pierce’s genius. But let’s assume for a moment that they are simply unable to carve a sum that’s probably less than the studio’s monthly janitorial budget from the studio coffers. I have a solution that can fund the Pierce star, without taking any profit from Universal’s pockets.

Universal is well aware that the legions of Monster-fans will snap up anything that hints of the classic Monsters… hell, we’ve been doing it for years. Recently, they announced that they would be releasing a new DVD of 1932’s THE MUMMY, starring Karloff, and directed by Karl Freund. This was one of Pierce’s masterpieces, exceeded only by his work on FRANKENSTEIN, and one of the special features on this disc will be a new documentary on Pierce, produced by Essman. Why this couldn’t be done last year, in time for the 75th anniversary of the film’s release, is a mystery to me. Why it’s being done now is obvious; to support the third Brendan Fraser MUMMY film, due out late this year.

My suggestion is simple, and will allow his fans the opportunity to express their appreciation to the man responsible for the iconic look of our beloved Monsters. Whatever price is set for this disc (most likely less than $20.00…) just increase it by $1.00. Just tack a buck onto the price, and use it to pay for that well-deserved recognition for Mr. Pierce.

Come on, Universal… what do you say? I’ll commit to buying my copy right now, and I know a horde of dedicated Monster-fans that would do the same. After all, we’re not asking you to do this out of the goodness of your heart. We’re willing to pay your debt to Mr. Pierce for you. All you have to do is take the money… and admit the obvious.

Without the artistry of Jack Pierce, Universal as we know it would not in all probability exist today. It’s time to say thank you to Jack. It’s time he had a star. (For more information, please go to http://www.jackpierce.com/, Scott Essman’s website.)

The Short, Amazing Career of Val Lewton

In a brief, four-year association with RKO Pictures, Val Lewton produced eleven films, nine of which were Horror Films, eight of which were successful to some degree. Those nine movies were films that took Horror fans in directions that had not been explored previously in American genre cinema. These were not the Monster-laden Classics of Universal, or their cheaper-than-dirt clones from the half-dozen or so “Poverty Row” studios. Though the titles were as lurid and enticing as anything from Monogram or PRC, these were Horror Films for the thinker. These were serious in a way that Universal had never tried to be.

Born Vladimir Leventon in Yalta, Crimea in 1904, Lewton’s mother and aunt moved the family to Berlin in 1906, then to the United States in 1909. Lewton, a born storyteller, began writing as a teen, selling his stories to anyone who would purchase them. Mainstream magazines, pulps, even pornographic publishers—if they would pay him for it, he would write it. Several of the less savory tales were published under the pen name of Carlos Keith, a name he would use again in Hollywood.

Lewton worked under David O. Selznick at M-G-M as a story editor, contributing ideas and scenes to many films, though usually without credit. One scene he is responsible for came about due to one of the few wrong decisions he made about a movie. He was reportedly opposed to the filming of GONE WITH THE WIND, feeling it would be a Box-Office flop. The legend has it that Selznick made him contribute one scene to the film. Not wanting to be associated with the movie, he set out to write a scene that would never get shot, a scene that would be cut before production. However, Selznick loved the scene, it was filmed, and it became one of the signature images of the movie—the scene in the Atlanta railroad depot, as the camera pulls back from Scarlett to reveal the hundreds of dying and wounded men.

In 1942, RKO Pictures was on the verge of bankruptcy. Orson Welles’ twin epics CITIZEN KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, though well received critically, were financial failures of the first order. Charles Koerner, head of the studio, canned Welles and ordered that no more “Artistic” movies be made. The success enjoyed by rival Universal Studios inspired him to launch a Horror unit at RKO, and Lewton, remembered as a writer of genre fiction, was hired to run it. Koerner may have expected typical, “Universal-style” monster movies from his new producer. What he got was anything but.

For the next four years, Lewton and his handpicked group of writers, directors, and actors produced nine of the most intelligent, serious, adult Horror Films ever made, certainly for those times. Gone were the popcorn plots and made-up monsters that defined 1940’s Horror. The fiends that haunted Lewton’s nightmares were all the more monstrous because they were so very normal; outwardly looking like the rest of us, yet inwardly evil and terrifying. These films are: THE CAT PEOPLE; I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE; THE LEOPARD MAN; THE SEVENTH VICTIM; THE GHOST SHIP; CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE; THE BODY SNATCHER; ISLE OF THE DEAD; and BEDLAM. All have been released within the past few years, in a pricey, though tremendously well-done, five-disc collector’s set from Turner Home Entertainment.

The things that critics so rightly hail Hitchcock for doing in the ‘60’s, Lewton and directors Jacques Tourneur, Robert Wise, and Mark Robson were perfecting in the ‘40’s, such as the famous “Bus” shot from THE CAT PEOPLE and the dark, atmospheric lighting that blankets all the Lewton Horror Films. Most importantly, Lewton’s films let the audience fill-in the ‘dark corners’ with their imaginations, painting details far more frightening than any studio, then or now, could produce. And while most producers have little effect on the style of a film, Lewton was hands-on with every aspect of production, and all nine of these movies unmistakably bear his imprint.

Working with titles mandated by RKO executives for their sheer luridness, he nonetheless crafted intelligent, effective tales of terror to fit those pulp titles. Where most producers would’ve been content simply to give the studio what they thought they wanted, Lewton fought to keep his people together, and to make the movies he wanted to make. RKO’s Production Supervisor Lou Ostrow wanted Jacques Tourneur fired four days into the production of CAT PEOPLE; Lewton went straight to Koerner in order to keep him on the film. Following the success of the first few of his Horror Films, Lewton was offered to chance to move up to an A-grade production; he turned the offer down when told he couldn’t use Mark Robson to direct it.

In a business where some people would throw their own mothers to the sharks for fifteen minutes to pitch a script, Lewton displayed a unique level of loyalty to his creative people.

As the Horror cycle wound down following the end of World War II, Lewton finished his run at RKO with three Period horrors, all starring the Master of terror, Boris Karloff. The first of these, THE BODY-SNATCHER, was the also the best, featuring Bela Lugosi in the final pairing of the two horror icons.

Lewton left RKO in 1946 to form an independent production company, though the mainstream success he sought would elude him. He would make only three more pictures, all somewhat lackluster, prior to his premature death from a heart attack in 1951. He was less than two months shy of his 47th birthday.

The legacy Val Lewton left behind far outweighs the number of his contributions to, or the brevity of his work in, the horror genre. Without Lewton, there might not been a Hitchcock; at least, not as we know him. Without the shower scene in THE SEVENTH VICTIM, would there had been a much more famous shower scene 16 years later? I don’t know, but I doubt it. No director, not even the great Alfred Hitchcock, works in a vacuum. He was at the least familiar with the Lewton film, if not directly inspired by it.

While nothing can supplant my love and respect for the great Universal horrors, that love is not blind. I see them for what they are, at least what the 1940’s vintage Uni-Horrors are: mindless, popcorn-selling, seat-filling ways to kill an hour or so. And while Lewton’s films did the same, they also did something else: They showed us that Horror could be smart, and that the scariest place in the world is in our own imaginations.

GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN—The Monster’s Last Real Hurrah

Between 1931 and 1948, Universal released no less than eight films featuring their most iconic creation, Frankenstein’s Monster. Portrayed by more of Universal’s Horror stars than any other Classic Universal monster, he also underwent the greatest amount of change of any of the Big Four of Universal’s stable of monsters. Not in terms of his trademarked look, but in how he was treated and portrayed on-screen.

Boris Karloff’s 1931 Monster was the very image of pathos, a tortured soul seemingly cursed by an unkind God to a living death. Four years later, in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, he shambled closer to capturing his humanity, if only for a few brief moments, before being rejected by his erstwhile bride.

Karloff’s last turn as his signature character was 1939’s SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, and by then any trace of humanity was gone, replaced by a cold seething hatred of all save his friend Ygor, played wonderfully by Bela Lugosi. After this film, Karloff vowed never to play the Monster again; so dissatisfied was he with the direction the character was taking.

Though Karloff was without question Universal’s biggest Horror Star of the 1930’s, by the early ‘40’s that crown was planted firmly on Lon Chaney, Jr’s furrowed (and often furry…) brow. Perhaps it was natural that he should succeed Karloff in portraying Universal’s most significant Monster. In 1942’s GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, he does just that, on his way to becoming the only actor to play all of Universal’s four top monsters. He also gave us the Monster’s last starring role, and the last time that Frankenstein’s Monster is portrayed as anything more than a prop. After this, Chaney's Wolf-Man / Larry Talbot would become Universal’s biggest headliner, and the Monster was reduced to the role of second banana.

In the four subsequent films, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN; HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN; HOUSE OF DRACULA; and ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, the Monster was relegated to little more than “background”, in the scene but having little to do with it. GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN was, in my opinion, the Monster’s last hurrah.

That doesn’t mean that those movies were bad; they weren’t. In fact, they were good, old-fashioned, B-grade, popcorn-selling programmers; fun to watch, and fun to remember. They are the movies that inspired my love of the Universal classics, and are still the movies I turn to when feeling nostalgic for the carefree days of my youth. But it’s not the Monster’s contributions that make them so.

However, in GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, Chaney’s able to imbue the Monster with a final spark of humanity, a last glimpse of the brilliant characterization that Karloff created in 1931. His interaction with the young girl, played by Janet Ann Gallow, easily recalls to mind the Monster’s first such encounter, along with its drastically different outcome. We can see the learning process that the Monster has undergone since little Maria’s tragic demise, and it helps restore some humanity that the Monster lost with his cold-blooded threats to Wolf Frankenstein's son Peter in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939).

Now, it is fair to say that GHOST… has its share of problems. The pace is slow for a Uni-Horror, with far too much screen time devoted to exposition and character development; the casting was misguided, with Cedric Hardwicke in over his head as Victor Frankenstein, Henry’s other son. Lionel Atwill, who was wasted in the role of Dr. Bohmer, would have carried the lead splendidly had it been given to him.

Also, the story was the weakest thus far in the series. With the plot concerning replacement of the Monster’s brain, which necessitated his being immobilized for long stretches of the film, we see that the Monster has begun his transformation from lead character to stage prop. He would spend the balance of his career stretched out on slabs of one form or another, waiting for the next experiment.

But at least in GHOST… we get to see him playing an active role one last time, and with one of the greatest Horror stars ever under Jack Pierce’s make-up. While Lon Chaney Jr. wasn’t the equal of Karloff when it came to acting ability, he performed far better in the role than Bela Lugosi would in the next film, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF-MAN. Lugosi, who passed on the opportunity to portray the Monster for the original 1931 production, only proved that his initial decision was correct. And while Glenn Strange did better than Lugosi, it’s not as though he was asked to truly stretch his acting muscles.

I really didn’t intend for this to be a review of GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. I’ve written that review before, and don’t really care to revisit it now. I just wanted to convey to the Crypt’s readership the bittersweet appeal of this installment in the Universal Horror franchise. While not the equal of the movies that preceded it, GHOST… does offer us a unique portrayal of Frankenstein’s Monster, a terrific performance from Lugosi as Ygor, the always gorgeous Evelyn Ankers as the daughter of Victor Frankenstein, and Lionel Atwill as the Doctor’s twistedly evil assistant, Bohmer. The plot is weak, but no more than the norm for Universal Horrors of the 1940’s, and the fine performances more than make up for any deficiencies in the story.

GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN isn’t a big favorite of mine, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate the film for its place in the Universal canon. Its importance far outweighs the quality of the movie itself, which is admittedly not Universal’s best. And for me, the most important aspect of the movie is Chaney’s performance as the Monster, the one last glimpse we get of the Monster as the Monster, rather than the caricature he would become.