Greg Hildebrandt Merges With The Infinite

This is so strange.  Just last month, I was looking for collections of the work of Greg and Tim Hildebrandt.  

I've recently decided that as I slow my comics collecting to make sure I have collections of the works of the fantasy, sci-fi and commercial artists who impacted me as a youth - and the Hildebrandts were certainly among those.  And, whether you knew Greg Hildebrandt's name or not, it's likely you knew and loved his work.

Hildebrandt has passed at the age of 85.   

I can't even put my finger on why I can recognize a Hildebrandt versus a Larry Elmore, for example.  Or Joe Jusko or Frazetta.  Nerds will know what I'm talking about.  It's like recognizing handwriting.  But something about the stances, the framing and how light is painted gives it away.  The Pinocchio below throws me off because of the lack of humans.

Anyway - for decades, the Hildebrandts produced some amazing work that brought to life either words on a page or found the iconography in comics and movies.

Noirvember Watch: Desert Fury (1947)

Watched:  11/1/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Lewis Allen

Well, I'm not sure I started Noirvember 2024 with a bang, but I did finally check this one off the list.

First - yes, this thing is in color, and maybe worth seeing a 1947 crime film shot in vivid, even lurid, color.  See Lizabeth Scott's golden locks!  Marvel at the color of Mary Astor's pants!  (No, really, it's a pretty movie and maybe worth a watch just for that.)  But the minute people start talking in what is supposed to be snappy crime-drama dialog, you kind of know you're in trouble.  It's mostly non-sequiturs and stern declarations.

To me, Desert Fury (1947) is a bit of a melodramatic slog, and hinges on a protagonist hurling herself into bad ideas so often, while offering no sympathetic or redeeming qualities (other than a stellar wardrobe), it's hard to get, here in 2024, what we're supposed to like about her.  The motivation of the criminals in the movie is murky - and why they're even in the little desert oasis just feels like incompetence on someone's part.  

The set-up is that a clearly mid-20's Lizabeth Scott (playing 19 here and looking 32) returns home from quitting another finishing school.*  She wants to come work at her mother's casino so she can make a ton of cash and lord it over the judgey people of her hometown.  Not a bad plan.  On the way into town, she comes across John Hodiak and Wendell Corey, a pair of crooks.  A very young Burt Lancaster plays the town Deputy and soda bottle seller?  I never figured out what was happening.

Mary Astor, who looks like an older cousin to Scott (only 15 years older but looking maybe 7), plays her mother.  She's obviously the best actor in this by a country mile, playing a tough-girl from a rough background who made it big out west.  They live in an amazing mansion.  But Mary Astor basically wants for Scott to marry a nice-boy and join polite society and get away from her frankly very awesome-looking life of running a casino.

Hodiak and Corey have returned to the small town to sort of lay low and do some gambling at Mary Astor's casino.  Why?  It's unclear.  Hodiak is still recovering from the death of his wife that occurred in this one-horse-town.  So why they came back is anyone's guess.

Scott falls for Hodiak for absolutely no reason other than everyone tells her not to.  Just as she does everything just because someone told her not to - no matter how stupid that thing appears to be.  Men fall for her because she's the only sexually available woman in the movie, so Lancaster thinks she's swell, and Hodiak hurls himself at her.

Very, very clearly Hodiak and Corey are supposed to be in a gay relationship, and we learn that Hodiak was previously married to a woman - Scott's doppelganger - who wound up dead under mysterious circumstances.  And STILL Scott is like "I don't care!  I love his tiny mustache!".  

Things come to a head because everyone in this is kind of dumb, and the movie ends as you'd expect.

I'm just not a Lizabeth Scott fan.  She's fine.  She's not annoying when playing a well-written character.  But in an era littered with other actors I like, she doesn't move the needle for me as a plus for watching a film.  My understanding is that producer Hal B. Wallis was deeply in love with her, it ended up destroying him, and there's probably an interesting movie in there.

The movie was... okay.  From a "what's actually happening versus what we got past the censors" this movie is pretty amazing.  From a "do I like these characters or care about what's happening?" the movie was a bust for me.  I can take convoluted plots and characters making mistakes, even walking right into a bad idea for money or sex, but I'm not sure this one pulls it off enough that I care.  

*I finally read up on what finishing school was, and the past is a fascinating and foreign land

Annual HalloWatch: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Watched:  10/31/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

For evidence of our ongoing Frankenstein discussion, click here.

If you've followed this site, it is likely you know The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is easily one of my favorite films.  It takes everything I like in the first film (which is also a favorite) and turns it up to 11.  

I'm pretty sure star Colin Clive was not actually okay while filming this movie.  He was dead by 1937, and his drinking problem was likely in full-effect while making this movie.  But he's @#$%ing great as the manic Henry Frankenstein - obsessed with what he *almost* did in the last film, and not all that interested in his lovely fiancee (Valerie Hobson) in comparison to animating life with cosmic rays.  Which is a shame - Elizabeth seems nice, and psychic.

If the sets and lighting in Frankenstein filtered German Expressionism through an Anglo/ American lens, then this movie cranks it all up - with gigantic sets (what were those walls Minnie runs through returning to Castle Frankenstein?  The huge space of the entry hall!  The tower laboratory!)  and fascinating lighting and camera work - just watch the sparks and shadows in the birth sequence.

At this point, I'm not even really sure Bride of Frankenstein is a horror movie.  It certainly *looks* like one, and I'm sure the 1935 audience was primed for scares.  But, like its predecessor, it just isn't about scares.  Whale and Co. are clearly having a ball (see:  Ernest Thesiger, Una O'Connor and EE Clive playing it as high camp).  It's also got the pathos of the cabin sequence, Franky being harassed by the villagers, and the tears of rejection at the film's end.  At no point is the Monster really out to get anyone - even less so than in the first film.  If you're scared of him, you're part of the problem, amirite?

I try not to let it get to me that so much 21st Century Bride of Frankenstein imagery and merch and whatnot puts the Bride and Franky together as a couple.  To be blunt - it's demonstrating you've never actually seen the movie, and if you *have* seen the movie, you completely missed the point of it.  A point which is pretty difficult to miss here in 2024 - that all of your dumb plans to just make a "mate" for someone neglects the fact women have their own mind and are going to hiss at you like a goose if you think they just *have* to think you're a charmer.

My least favorite part of the film is not even in this movie.  It's not that we get so little of The Bride (she's in maybe five or six minutes of the movie), it's that she never shows up again.*  I mean, I'm aware they were not assuming, in 1935, there would be many more Universal Frankenstein movies - blowing folks up 60% of your main cast seems like a definitive ending.  And it's true James Whale did not return for a 3rd film.  I just would have liked to have seen her pop up again in one of the many, many, many... sequels.  

Not really sure what you can chalk it up to that we didn't see her again, but it's not a mistake modern filmmakers are champing at the bit to claim her story, and we have a Maggie Gyllenhaal directed Bride movie coming.  I believe there's others in the works, and I'm still cheesed we didn't get the Angelina Jolie/ Bill Condon directed version because The Mummy (2017) sucked.

*I'm not one of those folks who thinks "now I get to make up my own story and that's legit!  Head canon!" kind of people, so I take it she didn't make it out of the explosion or is lying undead under a pile of rubble somewhere.  

Annual HalloWatch: Frankenstein (1931)

Watched:  10/30/2024

Format:  BluRay

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  James Whale

For evidence of our ongoing Frankenstein discussion, click here.

Every year for Halloween, I try to watch Frankenstein (1931).  I like all of the Universal Monsters main films, but Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are the ones that resonate most with me.  Dracula feels like it's still trying to sort out how to make a talkie, even when it has moments of great beauty and imagination.  But something about the staging of Frankenstein in the bizarre, clearly artificial sets with skies painted on backdrops (where you can see folds and bunching) and sound that does sound as if it was recorded from a room mic sometimes...  Pair that with Clive's unhinged performance as the doctor, Karloff's iconic monster, and Dwight Frye's super weirdo, Fritz...  and it's a dream captured on film. 

Go look at the sets - the tower laboratory is a thing of beauty.  Castle Frankenstein's interiors.  The costuming.  A whole German village (you will see the same set 10,000x in Universal movies for years to come).  

I remember speaking with a high school English teacher years ago at a party, and she was bummed because she had to teach the novel of Frankenstein, finding it odd and unrelatable.  And I just laughed.  "What teenager doesn't feel like they've been forced into existence, and isn't mad at their parents for not understanding them?"  or, in the case of both book and movie - outright rejecting them?

For a film running a scant 70 minutes, the film contains comedy, pathos, existential dread, horror, and everything you could want in a film.  Father/son tension, contempt for local politicians, condemnation of stodgy institutions, bioelectric galvanism...

And, yes... the amazing make-up of Jack Pierce.  Who knew that almost 100 years later we'd still have a singular image in mind when someone says the word "Frankenstein".  

I've seen the movie far too many times to find it chilling - but there was a time early on seeing it that the strange atmosphere, the silence punctuated with shouting, electrical jolts,  and strange voices hit me.  And, of course, Karloff's uncanny portrayal against Clive's mania had it's own effect.  I get how people in 1931 might have seen this otherworldly presentation and lost their minds.

To me, in many ways, this is Halloween.  The weird, funny, dark, bizarre story is a match for how I feel about the holiday.

Anyway, a re-watch of ol' Frankie always pays off.  And - remarkably, the next two films starring Karloff as the monsters are classics as well.  Recommended.

Here's a podcast about some Frankenstein films from a few years back.

HalloWatch: Carnival of Souls (1962)

Watched:  10/29/2024
Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Herk Harvey

I don't know what I was expecting from Carnival of Souls (1962) but a sort of low-budget art-horror film wasn't really it.  Further, The Sixth Sense's twist ending doesn't seem like that big of a deal now.  

Probably famous because someone forgot to put a copyright notice on the film - and therefore it was copyright free and fair pickings for rebroadcast and re-showing on creature features - Carnival of Souls is now part of the horror canon.  It's a low-budget affair that easily could have delved into Ed Wood territory, but instead uses what it has - which is photography and lighting, great locations, pipe organs, a protagonist with a great profile who does a "haunted" look like no one's business...  add in a lot of dark clothes and pancake make-up, and we've put together a tight, spooky flick.

In Kansas, a group of young women cruising on a sunny afternoon race a bit with some young men, but accidentally drive off a bridge into a deep river.  The car is submerged and can't be found.  But three hours later, one of the women emerges from the water, confused and with no idea what just happened.

Teri Garr Merges With The Infinite

Performer in movies and television, Teri Garr, has passed at the age of 79.

We're aware Garr had been suffering from Multiple Sclerosis for quite some time and had somewhat left the public eye.

Garr is a curious performer as she really bridges the tail end of the Silver Age of Entertainment and carries through the rebellious 1970's and is a star of the 1980's.  A hell of a lot can happen in just over a decade.  

*Everyone loves Teri Garr*, and if you didn't or don't - you're a person I don't want to know.

Robo Crampton Watch: Robot Wars (1993)

Watched:  10/26/2024

Format:  Amazon 

Viewing:  First

Director:  Albert Band

Some time back in the early 90's, I remember renting Robot Jox, and kind of liking it well enough, while absolutely understanding I was watching a very silly movie.  It was only in recent years that I figured out that Robot Jox and Robot Wars (1993) were not the same movie.  But I didn't at all care.

But that was before I decided Barbara Crampton is a good idea, and I was looking to see what else she's in that's on Prime.  And, lo and behold.

A trim 72 minutes of movie later, I have now seen Robot Wars.  

This movie is not super good.  It's the kind of stuff made for the rental market and then dumped onto USA Up All Night by 1996.  I'm becoming more familiar with Full Moon Features and its output, and I'm not mad at it.  It's utterly lacking in pretention, and I imagine these shoots were kind of fun.  

Robot Wars takes place in 2041, I believe, after wars and disasters have changed the world.  I'm not sure if it's a sequel to Robot Jox, shares a universe, or whatever.  But there's only one giant, scorpion-shaped robot left in the world, and it's used to both defend the civilized world and transport folks across wastelands full of hostile forces - touristy!

There's a *lot* of plot.  Because they can't really afford a lot of action.  After all, when the robots are in motion, it's Stop-Motion (Jurassic Park is this same year).  And the laser-gun action is mostly... perfunctory.  But there's a lousy guy running the free world, trying to be friends with China.  So, we get two "that guy!" Asian actors having what seems to be a good time.  Two dopey dudes stand in for the hunky hero and his pal, and there's two lovely women running around as our actual heroes.

Anyway, a pre-surgery Lisa Rinna plays a reporter whose pal, Leda (Barbara Crampton) is checking out the wastelands and find out if the toxic-spill areas are safe or not.  

All you need to know is this is a movie with some robot fighting, 1993 LA doubling for a city abandoned in 1993, many steam tunnels, basements, AV equipment doubling for robot command consoles, and the most attention of anything paid to Rinna and Crampton's hair.  They both look 1993-fabulous.

The movie is the equivalent of cotton candy.  You'll know you consumed it, but just be left with a blue tongue and a slightly upset stomach, and then want to have some more.

Anyway, if the goal was to see robots (in general), robots fighting (specifically), actors you recognize and are surprised to see in this...  sign yourself up. 

Regretful HalloWatch: Casper (1995)

ugh

Watched:  10/25/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Brad Siberling

selection:  Jamie.  She made me watch this.

@#$%ing Casper (1995).  

I hated this movie in 1995 when I saw it, and, here, nearly 30 years later, I remember exactly why.  This movie is the culmination of so many bad ideas from the 90's, it's almost a wee bit magical.  It's a kid's movie where they made it 35% for adults and 50% for kids and 15% for a peculiar audience of people who want things to suck real bad.

I have no doubt Millennials Space Jam Fallacy the crap out of this movie (ie: believe this movie is good because they liked it when they were young and their brains were spongey and "good" meant mommy would let you play it over and over on the VHS while she drank wine with the pool boy), but this movie is a parade of 90's excess.  It's also proof that you can drop $55 million (> $110 million adjusted) on a movie, pack it with faces, meta references and other 90's tricks - and it's no better than, say, Bailey Saves Christmas.  

I'm old enough that Casper cartoons were still running on TV when I was a very little kid.*  As a young reader, I was given Harvey Comics starring Casper, Hot Stuff, Wendy the Witch, Ritchie Rich, et al... .  Flash forward to the mid-90's, we were exploiting IP in interesting ways at the movies - making live action Flintstones.  Addams Family.  I'd also seen Dennis the Menace.  And I am sure other things.  So why not a live action Casper?  

Whoops Hallo-Watch: Legend of the Wolf Woman (1976)

this poster way oversells the movie

Watched:  10/25/2024

Format:  Full Moon on Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Rino Di Silvestro

Well, I accidentally watched an Italian sexploitation movie thinking I was watching a werewolf movie.

This is what Amazon pitched to me/ possibly rolled over into after Castle Freak, and I was like "sure, why not?  I haven't watched much straight-trash yet this year for Halloween.  Let's watch a 1976 Italian werewolf film."

To my credit - it IS called "Legend of the Wolf Woman" (1976) and the first scene had a werewolf in it.

After that, it's about a lady (the lovely Annik Borel) with some serious issues who goes on a killing spree, *thinking* she's a werewolf, getting naked occasionally, and sometimes having sex.  

Major content warning:  It also has a really grim sexual assault scene I wasn't expecting and was super unpleasant and unnecessary.

Is the movie good?  No.  Did I keep thinking maybe she'd turn into a werewolf and redeem my use of time?  Yes.  Was I wrong and zero werewolves appeared after the first scene?  Also: yes. 

The poster says it's based on a true story, and the movie suggests so at the end, but... who knows?

Anyway, I'm calling this one a mulligan.

If anyone knows of anything with Annik Borel that isn't... bad.  Let me know.

Crampton Hallo-Watch: Castle Freak (1995)

One poster shows the villain, which is a spoiler, and one is a teenager in a bra, so you get Crampton

Watched:  10/24/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stuart Gordon

I am not always in-line with all of the thinking that goes into being a hard-core horror film fan, but I love how much they celebrate the work of their favorite actors - and keep them employed for decades.  One such fave I've been aware of for some time has been Barbara Crampton, and I'm on board.  Sign me up for the Crampton fan club.  

So, we'll be digging a bit more into the Crampton-filmography over time.

When I saw that Castle Freak (1995) re-teamed director Stuart Gordon with actor Jeffrey Combs and Crampton, and I saw some notes about "this is a horror movie with a kind of grown-up storyline" I was curious.  I like a good "whoops, the robots have flipped out at the shopping mall" movie as much as the next guy, but I wanted to know what this team looked like doing a bit more drama and little less in the way of re-animated corpses running about.  

Combs and Crampton play a couple on the rocks following the blinding of their daughter (Jessica Dollarhide) and death of their young son after Combs drove them off the road, drunk.  Clearly Crampton can't forgive and forget, and Combs is maybe too much of an egoist to really accept what he did.  But a mysterious relative has just passed, and when that occurs, Combs learns that he's inherited a castle in Italy.  Apparently he was Italian nobility.

Well, wouldn't you know it - there's a freak living chained up in the basement of the castle.  And by freak, we mean a hideously deformed, savage human, that for some reason, someone decided it was best they keep in a cage in the basement.  

The arrival of the fractured family leads to the "freak" flipping out and escaping, where he hides in the many hidey-holes of the castle and occasionally popping out to harass and then murder.  There is a housekeeper, who is aware of the freak (who is named Giorgio, so I can stop calling a fictional disabled person a "freak") but has been complicit in Giorgio's horrible life.

The family fractures all the more, and Combs goes out where he picks up a bottle again and accidentally picks up a hooker.  Things go sideways as the hooker leaves - and it brings things to a head, as police want to look into the castle.

As a stand-alone story about a family trying to move past trauma, you do get the idea that Combs and Crampton would have been interesting in a straight drama about loss.  The Crossing Guard, which is @#$%ing great but depressing, comes to mind.  We're nowhere near that - after all, we have a dude running around murdering people with his bare hands to contend with - but we do get to use that as a sort of investigation of the secrets families keep, our own weaknesses and what we can do to make amends.  

There's a 2020 version of this film for reasons I cannot fathom, which sounds like it's much more Lovecraftian in nature and changes all the major details that make this one different and/ or interesting.  What it does do is say "maybe we shouldn't make a wretched human an actual monster" which plays very oddly now, as I know it probably did in 1995 - but which arrived in a period full of serial killer movies, so who knows?

I find it interesting that this was poster-girl Jessica Dollarhide's last movie.  Maybe she went to college and was done.  I can't say.  She's certainly not bad in the movie.

Anyway, I don't want to oversell it, but it *is* different.  The same sort of lived-in, real-world problems, like, say, in The Shining, are an interesting refraction against the part that makes the film "horror".