In Case You Were Wondering What Happened

Remember Bookstore Saturday?

Well, I just finished reading the last book from that particular day's adventure (not quite true, but the two leftovers I won't be reading anytime soon, so here we are). At any rate, this is what happened, expectations-met-or-expectations-not-met-wise.

In case you were wondering.

---

My second reading of this one, and it's actually held up pretty well, given the fact that even a 100 foot giant squid isn't nearly as scary as a 20 foot great white shark. (amiright?) And like it was in Jaws, Benchley's writing style here has a bit of a flat affect, so what could potentially be terrifying comes off as less than pulse pounding. Still, a decent read. If I were doing brain counts for these (not sure if I am or not yet), Beast would probably get a solid three.

So, um,

THREE SOFT CORE CSI BRAINS

(brain count added after the fact and makes sense as you keep reading. probably).

You know, I don't think I've actually read anything of Benchley's other than Jaws and this one, but both those books have a kind of low key feel to the writing that tends to keep my heart rate down, even in the sticky bits. (Quick internet check: Oh, I also took in White Shark back in the day. I guess we all know where my Benchley-esque interest starts and stops, then. Speaking of heart rate though, if memory serves and who knows if it does without a reread, White Shark had a little more pep to it than these other two killer sea creature yarns.)

The other thing with this book is that I kept remembering its TV movie with William Petersen, which reminded me of him playing Gil Grissom in CSI (which I loved), which then reminded me of seeing him in some godawful late night cable sexy romance thing, and I was forever scarred because I could never look at CSI's Gil Grissom quite the same after that. Nothing to do with this book. That's just what I thought about.

---

And speaking of Benchley's White Shark, if you ever find yourself needing to choose between reading that half-man-half-shark novel and the one Steve Alten did, go with Benchley's. Please. Trust me on this. And it's a shame, 'cause I've enjoyed everything else Alten has done. Sharkman is definitely his odd man out and I don't know what happened, but it's terrible. It's the only book of his I've read that is done in first person; maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know.

But we're not talking about that book, we're talking about Meg, the first in his Meg series, which is mostly a fine read. Except for its ridiculous climax, where the hero gets swallowed by a giant shark and, using his lucky fossilized megalodon tooth to cut his way through its various body cavities, slices its heart open and kills it dead. (Then escapes to tell the tale!) This book was a second read for me as well, but trust me that ending was as hard to take the first time around.

Well, like I say, the rest of the book is fun, and it definitely does get the old pulse rate up along the way. We get two (count 'em--two!) giant sharks and plenty of mayhem to spread around. Alten writes his characters a little on the one dimensional side, on purpose I think, and as a result you pretty much always know who's gonna end up shark food by the end of things.

Anyway, this one's a solid four on the brain count (I guess I am doing them). Let's see...

FOUR CARTILAGINOUS SKELETON BRAINS

Damn, now I have to go back and make up a clever brain count descriptor for Beast....

There, done.

Huh. Now I'm reading Jason Statham might be involved in the upcoming movie version of this book. Could be it turns into a decent-ish film after all. (Statham always elevates, amiright?)

---

Well then. What else can I say about this one that I didn't already say in the initial post? It was good. Four brains good? No, probably not. But three solid brains (methinks I sense a brain count theme in the works for this post). You know, I thought this one was a first time read, but I was getting major deja vu as I read, so I'm thinking not. Must have read it as a kid. Anyway, characterization is the word of the day, here. Seltzer does a great job writing these characters in a full-fledged way. The monster is cool, and the end is ever so much more satisfying than what the movie came up with. (I'm talking the epilogue, not the main monster's death, although honestly everything monster related works better here on-page than it does on the screen).

I don't know that Seltzer did anything other than this and The Omen, novel-wise, but he's pretty good at it. Wish he'd done more. That being said, I bet I won't pick up The Omen anytime soon--those kinds of stories totally creep me out. (Blech!)

THREE UNBENEVOLENT BEAR BRAINS

---

Also a second read-through for me, and another solid three brainer. I'll tell you this much, James Herbert does the whole British killer animal shtick better than Richard Lewis ever did. This was Herbert's first novel, and he ended up writing over twenty more, including two or three rat infested sequels to this one.

Anyway, this has plenty of action and 70s gore (fairly stomachable these days), several edge of your seat scenes (that school siege and the hero's last minute race to the rats' nest, in particular), and just enough characterization and commentary to keep the boredom away. My general target for a four brainer is will I seek it out more than once over the years (not counting the occasional second read after decades, like most of these have been so far). And... this one doesn't go quite that far. But it's definitely a high-end three:

THREE RAZORED INCISOR BRAINS.

---

Yeah, this really did remind me of The Andromeda Strain. Both really good books and both written in a purposely (unlike Benchley's efforts, I think) informational, news item-like style. Pretty much the polar opposite of Herbert's ratty sensationalism, too. You know, stuffy-scientist-point-of-view and all that. But fun and intriguing, hard to put down in spite of its not being a pulse raiser. I thought I might have read this once before, and yep, I surely did remember it once I dived in.

Where are the killer bees, anyway? I totally remember this being in the news when I was a kid. We were supposed to have just so many years before they'd be spread all across the U.S. and we'd be dying by the thousands. Huh: Wikipedia check (we know it's true!) tells me they've been here since the eighties and currently account for a couple of deaths each year. I guess the threat was over-hyped, back in the day. The end has come and we haven't noticed.

Anyway, the book is a good read, but it doesn't break the four brain barrier:

THREE AFRICANIZED ROYAL JELLY BRAINS (shrug)

---

Oh. Skip this one, if you want. I was originally hoping for something cyborgy, what with the title and all. Then reading the back, I figured "genetically enhanced superman" of some kind, so I bought it anyway. Meh. A guy finds out he's got a genetic predisposition toward violence and ends up killing himself and some other people. No wait, he only puts himself into a permanent coma at the end, so he's not actually dead.

Anyway, the book is bleak, nihilistic, excessively dark, containing not a smidgen of hope between its covers. Nothing against its author, he writes well, but I kind of felt like dying myself after finishing it. And not in a glib "it was so bad I wished I was dead" way; it was just horribly depressing to read. So, if that's your thing, go for it. I'll be steering clear of this guys work in the future, though.

Ugh, just remembering the read has me feeling low. I kept reading, hoping things would finally turn around for, well, any of its characters. But no. Lives ended or otherwise ruined, and not in fun, over the top genre ways--just darkly depressing horrifying real-life type stuff. And I think we know how I feel about this one now.

ONE DEPRESSINGLY GENETICALLY ABNORMAL BRAIN

---

Ah. I think I'll be doing a fuller review of this one, along with the movie that came from it. I also think I originally said it was published straight to paperback, but that might not be true (well, it isn't); I'll look at the various covers and formats when I do the full review. For now I'll just say the book is basically a zombie love story, and mostly works as that, even if it does have a few spots where the plot stretches uncomfortably, mostly due to having a 13 year old protagonist.

What I mean by that is there are spots, plot-wise, where the 13 year old might have worked a little better as a slightly older character. Then again, a lot of the book's charm comes from the fact its main character is a precocious kid, so I'm not really complaining. Overall, I'd say the author did a reasonable job working out the storytelling kinks inherent when children are doing adult-y kinds of things.

In fact, she handled the whole shebang well enough for me to give this book the post's second (and last) jump into upper-level brain count territory, with:

FOUR CYBER-ZOMBIE BRAINS

So there.

---

Hmm. I fear we're ending on a downer, here. If you remember from Bookstore Saturday, I was assuming this book was all ready to give me some genetic-experiment-man-in-ape's-body joy. I mean come on, look at that cover: it's a man's eyes and an ape's eyes and an in-between-man-ape's eyes, right? Right? And it was in the shops horror section, for crying out loud. This thing's got Altered States written all over it!

Nope. It's a soap opera that takes place in a research facility. As in, who's gonna sleep with who and who's gonna make a power play at the office, etc. Oh. And there's an ape in one scene that parrots the word "cup" after hearing it played over and over again on a recording. That's the entire science fiction/fantastical element of the story. "Cup." Sigh.

Well written, no qualms there. It was just so not what I was hoping for. And sure, there's subtext commentary being made by the author about how human beings aren't really all that different from apes, that we're all basically a bunch of clothed beasts running around with a thin veneer of civilization separating us from them, yada yada.

TWO NOT-EVEN-APE-MAN BRAINS

Sigh. Only two books out of these eight that I hadn't already read, and they both turned out to be bummers. Whatta ya do, right? (You go back for another Bookstore Saturday, get more loot and try again, that's what you do!)

---

As for the two books from that day's haul that I haven't read yet, one of 'em (Barnabas Collins) I honestly doubt I'll ever get to. Maybe If I'm bored and feeling unusually curious, one of these days. The other was the "illustrated" horror film history, which I just haven't gotten around to. Well, I have but it's more of a pick-it-up-now-and-again-for-a-few-pages-of-reading-until-it's-finally-done-months-later kind of book. I'll finish it eventually and probably give it a write up then.

Well, they say good things come in threes (do they say that?). If they do, it bears out here, since half of these books ended up as three brainers--with a couple of standouts and letdowns thrown in the mix. All in all, it could have been worse.

Okay then. Now you know what happened with that Bookstore Saturday.

Bookstore Saturday

So this last weekend a Bookstore Saturday happened.

As you may know, a Bookstore Saturday is a lot like a regular Saturday, sandwiched there between Friday and Sunday, and so on. What's different about a Bookstore Saturday, though, is the Bookstore Visit that occurs in the middle of it.

Now, I'm not talking about just any bookstore, or any visit. This is no quick dash to a local Barnes & Noble, no sir. There are rules about these kinds of things. A Bookstore Saturday, to warrant the term, pretty much has to include the following:

1. It takes place on a Saturday (obviously).
2. It involves, at the very least, 2 hours in-store (preferably 3 or more).
3. The store must primarily be a used bookstore (smattering of new books allowed)
4. It should be a used bookstore that looks like this...

...and not like this:

Now there's not a thing in the world wrong with that second type of bookstore; it has its place in the book world. It just doesn't qualify for a Bookstore Saturday, since Bookstore Saturdays always include losing yourself in mazes of somewhat-but-not-entirely-well-organized stacks of books.

After all, the search is (at least) half the fun.

So. Here's the loot-haul I left with when last Saturday's adventure concluded. Some I've read before, some I haven't and most will probably show up here as a review at some point in the future. I don't think any single book cost me more than 2 or 3 bucks, and the search itself was divine....

---

...FROM THE CUTTING EDGE OF TODAY'S SCIENCE
AND THE LOGS OF MARINER LEGEND
COMES AN IMMENSE HORROR--
A CREATURE THAT RISES UP
FROM THE WELL OF AN OCEAN GONE MAD,
WITH AN INSATIABLE HUNGER
AND AN ENDLESS LUST TO KILL.

Well then. This giant squid tale was published in 1991, and I vaguely remember reading it back in the day. It was eventually adapted into a 2 part TV movie (in 1996, starring William Petersen), which I also vaguely remember. But I don't remember enough of either one to keep me from enjoying a fresh take. Also, I'm pretty sure it was the first time Benchley had gone back to ocean horror since doing Jaws, so I'm looking forward to seeing/re-seeing how it compares....

---

WAY DOWN IN THE COLDEST,
DARKEST, MOST FRIGHTENING DEPTHS
OF THE OCEAN, AN ANCIENT CREATURE,
DEADLIER THAN ANY OUR MODERN
WORLD HAS ENCOUNTERED,
BEGINS TO STIR.

No, you're not just imagining the beginnings of a theme here--there really is a lot of animal attack/creature feature stuff lurking in this weekend's haul. Originally published in 1997, this novel was the first in Steve Alten's mostly fun to read Meg series, which (so far) includes four sequels and a prequel for a total of six books. I've read this and the others as well, but got rid of 'em in one of my Book Thinnings. Thought I'd pick this first one up and (eventually) add its review to the sh-sh-shark! series. There's supposed to be a movie version in the works, which could end up anywhere from extremely cool to horrifyingly lame on the cool-to-lame-book-to-movie-conversion-scale (but let's face facts, it will probably come out closer to the lame end). Ah, who am I kidding? I'll be seeing it regardless. But I hope it's at least moderately cool.

---

...IN MANATEE COUNTY, MAINE...
BIOLOGICAL CHANGES ARE BEGINNING
TO OCCUR. PEOPLE ARE SICK, THEIR MINDS
ARE CONFUSED. CHILDREN ARE BORN DEAD...
BORN DEFORMED.
AND A FAMILY OF CAMPERS
HAS BEEN FOUND DEAD, MUTILATED BY SOME
INDESCRIBABLY BRUTAL FORCE...

Moving along from big things in the ocean, to a big thing (mutated grizzly bear) in the forest, this book was actually a novelization of 1979's Prophecy, which film I watched again recently and may (or may not ever) get around to reviewing here. The same guy wrote both screenplay and book, and it shows: you can tell he "knows" the film's characters, and has plenty of good stuff to add as he pads out the screenplay. It's really a well done novelization (so far--I'm only a few chapters in) of a well done film. And I know the film gets laughed at quite a bit, but really it was just those 1970s practical effects with the monster that didn't work, there. The film itself was nicely done.

---

FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS
MAN AND RATS
HAD BEEN NATURAL ENEMIES.
BUT NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME
--SUDDENLY, SHOCKINGLY, HORRIBLY--
THE BALANCE OF POWER HAD SHIFTED TO--
THE RATS.

Continuing down the size-of-threat scale (ooh, if I'd put Meg before Beast, biggest to smallest totally would have happened! oh well, it still mostly works) from really-big-in-forest to not-quite-as-big-in-city. I totally read this one when I was younger too, probably in the late 70s (published in 1974) or early 80s. But I haven't picked it up since, so it's time for another go. This was also made into a movie, in 1982, but I'd have to say not much (other than giant rats) survived its adaptation from page to screen. James Herbert: what's not to love about that guy? amiright?

---

BUT THEN THE DEATH TOLL BEGAN TO MOUNT--AND TERROR
ERUPTED INTO NATIONAL PANIC AS GREAT SWARMS OF
SAVAGE BEES, DEADLY KILLERS, BLOTTED OUT THE SUN IN
THEIR SPREAD ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

Another 1974 release, here. I think I've probably read this at some point in the past. How could I not have? But if so it's buried in the mists of time (what does that even mean?), so it'll feel like new along with the others. Good book by great author, made into (yet another) failed movie. I think that happens a lot. This'll be a fun read, though. Bzzz...

---

[A] GENETIC ABNORMALITY IN HIS BLOOD... MADE THIS... MAN
ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS CREATURES ON EARTH.

Moving out of natural horror now, I confess this 1996 title had me hoping for something killer-robot related. No such luck, it looks to be more violent-genetically-altered-superman, but I picked it up anyway and will give it a read at some point. (It's one I actually haven't read in the distant past!) We'll see how it goes. I also confess I'd never heard of Brian Hodge, but he's still writing and looks to have a decent fan base going. So like I said, we'll see.

---

HE LOVES HER SO MUCH, HE CANNOT LET HER GO.
AND WHEN SUDDENLY, TRAGICALLY, SAMANTHA IS LOST,
HE MAKES A SOLEMN VOW--
TO USE ALL HIS GIFTS OF GENIUS TO KEEP HIS BELOVED SAMANTHA.
FOR JUST A LITTLE WHILE LONGER....

Getting a little closer to killer robot territory here, with a computer chip controlled reanimated corpse, this is also one I've read back in the day. I actually read this one after seeing the movie it spawned (usually the other way around). Not a bad (though much maligned) little movie, but this book is a lot better. And really different from the movie. As they generally are, but apparently Craven wanted to honor the book a lot more than he got to. Would've been nice to see his original vision for the film. Book was published straight to paperback in 1985, and the movie was (briefly) in theaters by 1986, so someone was hot to trot for movie-izing the novel.

---

THE SCENE: A RESEARCH LABORATORY SOMEWHERE IN ENGLAND....
...A RESEARCHER WHO DEPARTED UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND... OTTO, A REMARKABLY INTELLIGENT CHIMPANZEE WITH A SECRET
THAT SEEMS TO HOLD EVERYONE IN ITS SINISTER GRIP.

Hmm. It's gotta be a guy turned into a chimp, right? Or maybe had his brain transplanted into one? Something like that's what I'm hoping for anyway. I don't know, since it's another new one for me. Looks interesting. It's from 1973, and that vintage always lends a special something only late 60s-early 70s sci-fi/horror novels can.... I don't know Philip Oakes, but my guess is this one is a bit of Thinking Man's Science Fiction. Great cover....

---

YOUR BLOOD WILL GROW COLD AS YOU READ THE
NEVER-BEFORE-TOLD STORY OF THE FOGGY NIGHT IN
1899 WHEN BARNABAS COLLINS FIRST ARRIVED AT
COLLINWOOD. YOU'LL CHILL TO THE FULL HORROR OF
THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BARNABAS--A SECRET SO TER-
RIBLE THAT IT COULD NOT BE REVEALED UNTIL NOW...

Even more vintage, this is number six in a series of thirty three ( ! ) Dark Shadows novels written by William Ross, between 1966 and 1972, under his pen name Marilyn Ross. This one was written in 1968 and I might never actually read it (but then again I might). I mostly got it because it was old and cool and Dark Shadowy. The missus and I are, after several years trying, still somewhere in the midst of our quest to watch every single episode of the old TV series, and this book just bumped up against that in a good way, so I picked it up. Truth be known, I'd be more likely to read it if it didn't take place pre-1960s (it takes place mostly in the early 1900s). I've never been a huge fan of the show's "olden times" story-lines. The book could surprise me, though.

---

IN THIS BOOK CARLOS CLARENS BRINGS HIS ENCYCLOPEDIC
KNOWLEDGE OF FILMS AND FILMMAKERS TO THE SUBJECT OF
HORROR FILMS OF THE CLASSIC ERA. WHETHER DISCUSSING
THE EROTIC ASPECTS OF KING KONG, EXAMINING THE WORKS
OF VAL LEWTON, CONTRASTING THE DIRECTOR'S ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE MONSTER IN FRANKENSTEIN AND THE BRIDE OF
FRANKENSTEIN, ACCOUNTING FOR THE SPECIAL GENIUS OF LON
CHANEY, OR COMPARING THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF DR. JECKYLL
AND MR. HYDE, CLARENS ENTERTAINS AS HE ENLIGHTENS.

Well that blurb about says it all, doesn't it? The only nonfiction of this week's haul, this book promises to be a good one. It's vintage, originally published in 1967, although my copy's a 1968 edition. Carlos Clarens is noted as "a film historian and writer," although my quick search didn't dig up much but this book. Could be he did magazine or newspaper work, for the most part. Great cover photo, even if the "illustrated" aspect of the book is just a few film stills inserted at front and back. As for the cover photo, it's from Night of the Demon/Curse of the Demon. That's a great movie to watch both versions of, back-to-back, to pick out and enjoy their differences. Just saying.

---

And there you have it: Bookstore Saturday.

(After-the-fact-addition-at-end: If you're as curious as I was about how these reads played out, you can find out all about it here. Just saying.

That's What He Said

I woke up this morning with a few of these quotes running through my head. (That happens to me.) Then I thought "what if I made these into a list and it was a quiz?" And just like that it went from being in my head to being real and on this page.

Here's the rules: You get, um, five points for every quote where you know what movie it's from (without looking anything up), and you get double points for every one where you know which character said it. Ooh, and triple points if you know the the name of the actor who played the character, on top of everything else (wow!).

Now this adds up to a lot of points, and you could potentially walk away from this whole thing very highly pointified, and since everybody loves points, I wish you the best of luck. But here's the bad news. Most of these quotes are obscure as hell and not easy to grock. The labels at the bottom of the post might (might) help you out some.

So here we go:

1. "Love to prove that, wouldn't ya? Get your name into the National Geographic."

2. "A naked American man stole my balloons."

3. "Some big, hard-boiled egg gets a look at a pretty face and bang, he cracks up and goes sappy!"

4. "Now I'm going in there to waste some teachers! Are you with me?!"

5. "I don't care if he killed a hundred people! We are scientists not moralists!"

6. "Oh, I wish we'd stuck to the road; these shoes just aren't made for hiking!"

7. "I'm only a head, and you're whatever you are. Together we're strong. More powerful than any of them."

8. "So, you have wounded me. But I must grow a new claw. Well and good, for I can do it in a DAY! But will you grow new lives when I have taken yours from YOU?!"

9. "Sir, I suddenly find your cognac as distasteful as your manner."

10. "Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics."

(Well, well? How many'd you get?)

Frankenstein on Film - Universal (Part 2 of 2)

Frankenstein on Film - The Silents
Frankenstein on Film - Universal Part 1
Frankenstein on Film - Universal Part 2
Frankenstein on Film - Hammer

Okay. So I think this post will be a little shorter than Universal Part One. Partly because that one took waaaay longer to write up than I wanted it to, and partly because... well, I just have less to say about these films than I did the earlier ones.

By this time, the monster had become a full fledged franchise--designed to be attached to a film, get the film churned out, and make some money--which mindset affected the way the monster was portrayed: less artistry and more "git-r-done."

Still fun to look at, though. Not AS fun. But fun.

So, this post will look at the last four films in the series: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), House of Dracula (1945) and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).

Once again, the photos I'm using here are a mix of publicity stills and actual scenes from the films, and most of the images I'm using came from one of these sites: Dr. Macro's High Quality Movie Scans, Classic Movie Monsters and Universal Monsters Tribute.

And remember, the idea here is not to review the films per se, but to compare these aspects of the monster across the films:

• a close up of the monster's face (differences in makeup design, etc.)
• the monster's full figure (comparing costuming and such)
• the monster's size alongside another person
• the monster alongside the actor who played it

Although, I may not be able to keep myself from commenting on the films themselves from time to time. Okay. Let's get to it.

---

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

The Mug Shot:

Daggers are coming out of my eyes. Right... now.

I just re-watched Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man the other night, to refresh my memory of the monster's scenes, and I was reminded of how little monster there really is in this movie, considering his name is right there in the title. Which monster-meagerness is apparently due to a couple of reasons.

Reason one is that test audiences sort of laughed at the monster speaking with Lugosi's Hungarian accent. And by sort of, I mean a lot. So, the studio decided to, ah, remove every shot of the monster speaking, from the film. Wow. Drastic. Now, I don't know how many scenes that amounted to, but it had to affect the storyline negatively, in addition to whittling down the monster's screen time.

Reason two, which may or may not have affected screen time but is damn irritating regardless, the monster was written and performed as being blind (which blindness had occurred near the end of the previous movie). But. The studio also decided to remove all reference to the blindness, which left a monster acting like he was blind for no apparent reason throughout this film. Which added to the weird, out-of-sync feel I had watching the thing.

Aside: You know, one of the fun things about writing purely for my own enjoyment is that I get to write just exactly what I want, even if it doesn't make perfect sense grammatically or thematically. Like making reason number two for less screen time have possibly little or nothing at all to do with screen time. Let me tell you, for a guy making his living as a technical writer--mucking about here, doing whatever the hell I want to do on the page, is pure nirvana. Anyway. Back to the monster. :End Aside

So what we ended up with, here, was what (I assume) started as a film pretty evenly matched--insofar as screen time is concerned--between Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man, but ended up being a movie about the Wolf Man, with a few confusing monster scenes sprinkled around in it. Which is irritating to me, 'cause it's a pet peeve of mine, having potentially decent films mucked up by studio executive types who have no idea what they're doing at the level of actual film making. Hell, it's a pet peeve of mine when they do that to a film that's NOT potentially decent. Not that I know for a fact it was the executive types that made the decision, here. I'm just choosing to make it a fact in my own mind when it may be NOTHING OF THE SORT.

Okay. Five paragraphs into the Mug Shot and I haven't said a word about it. And I'm talking about the movie when I made a point of saying earlier that I wasn't going to write about the movies, just the monster in them. But I had to get that off my chest.

The mug shot: I had a tough time finding a decent closeup of the monster for this film. (Which closeup you can easily see, way up there, six paragraphs above this sentence.) The one I ended up with is a particularly unflattering shot, but it illustrates nicely the idea I brought up in the previous post, that the further you get (with the actor) from Karloff-like features, the worse-looking monster you end up with.

Lugosi had an exquisite Dracula face. But his rounded 1930s European leading man features did NOT mesh with the squarish design that Jack Pierce originally created with Karloff. And it was still Jack Pierce doing the makeup at this point, by the way. As far as IMDB tells me, anyway.

Here's a little experiment: Look at the mug shot above and put your hand in front of it so you can only see the top half of the monster's head. Looks pretty good, right? Now move your hand so you can only see the bottom half. Still looks pretty good, if not particularly Frankenstein's monster-like. But you pull that hand away to see the whole thing at once? There's a disconnect, and your brain says "Frankenstein's monster--no wait, not Frankenstein's monster--no--it is--but wait--not quite...."

There you have it. Experiments do not lie. I'd have to say, in my comparison-loving mind and heart, this movie's monster is the worst of the lot. It just doesn't work. And yes, that forehead scar has changed again.

While this movie's monster is the stuff of nightmares for all the wrong reasons, there are some monster scenes in the movie that work better than others. Know why? Cause there were several scenes with people other than Lugosi playing the monster. Wikipedia says between one and three additional people. Here's one of 'em. The guy's got a better face for the makeup than Lugosi did.

I have a square, monster-like chin. And a previously broken nose.

Let's see how Wolf Man's monster fared at full-length.

The Full-Length Cadaver Shot:

Pretty sure that belt is way above belly button height. Just saying.

Well. He does look better at long-range than he does in the closeup. Whoa, that belt line is riding high. Nothing really weird about the costume as a whole though; it's the basic black that was used and worked in all the others.

Barring the unfortunate Wooly Teddy Bear look they went for in Son of Frankenstein:

Who is cuddlier? It's a TIE!

Anyway. To be fair, none of the things mucking up the monster's monster-ness in Wolf Man are the actor's fault. I'm placing blame, as blame goes, squarely on studio/filmmaker decisions. I guess "blame" is a strong word. It was what it was. People making a fast buck; any cool creative stuff they might've snuck in was (a distant) second in importance. Sigh.

Well. Was the monster in Wolf Man at least gigantic?

The Oversize Or Not Shot:

Regular-sized monster, who thinks he's blind but isn't, feeling his way along the caverns.

No. He was not. We're back to the Son of Frankenstein days of not even bothering to find a box for the old fellow to stand on. Above we see Wolf Man Talbot and the monster, with the monster LOOMING over Talbot by a good two inches. Yawn.

I daresay Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man's monster was pretty unmonstrous in about every way imaginable. But we're not done yet. We've still got three more films to go. And even though all three had the same guy as the monster, there's still some comparing to be done.

These last three movies were all done in a four year span, so actor age changing the look wasn't a huge factor. And it looks like somebody made a point of having the monsters look as alike as possible in the first two of them. Which isn't a bad thing. Unless you're trying to compare differences between them.

Hey, here's something random and neat (random for sure; just possibly neat): You got eight films, separated into two mirror-symmetrical groups. The first set of films had Karloff playing the monster three times, followed by Chaney playing it once. Then you get Lugosi doing it once, followed by Glenn Strange playing it three times. You've got a 3 + 1 followed by a 1 + 3. Ooh, I like that. It's just how my brain works. No apologies.

Moving on to the next film.

---

House of Frankenstein (1944)

The Mug Shot:

I am a monster and I am holding a flashlight under my chin. BOO!

So. This is a couple of steps up from Wolf Man's monster. It's even a step up from Ghost's monster, two films back. It's nowhere near the artistry we saw in Frankenstein and Bride, but it's definitely heading back in the right direction. Glenn Strange had a better face for the makeup than either of the two previous actors did.

Check out this life mask he had taken for makeup development. He was a big guy, 6' 5" and maybe 220 pounds. Not musclebound and not super slim. His face is actually a good starting point for the Universal monster, overall. Has a big, fleshy kind of look to it. Very different from Frankenstein's inverted triangle (see Universal Part 1 for more on that), this face has mass that goes toe to toe with Ghost's mug shot, but it also has some long to go with it's wide, so you don't end up with pinchably round cheeks like Ghost's monster had. I like it.

And, you know, HofF's monster has it's own version of Frankenstein's "I am a monster through no fault of my own and I am very sad about it" vibe, too. A kind of not-happy-to-be-back-from-the-dead melancholy the first couple of films had, that went away later on.

But if I had to liken this monster's closeup to any of the others, it'd be Bride's. They both have that big, blocky, menacing thing going for them. Okay.

Let's take a look at this monster's full-body.

The Full-Length Cadaver Shot:

Former glory, here I come!

Huh. Not bad. Looks pretty massive and monstery. Also similar to Bride's. By the way, at this point, the whole monster sticking his arms out in front of himself had become "the way it's done." Never mind it was initially to indicate the monster was blind and feeling his way around the room. Said Monster blindness really only existed, plot wise, in the last few minutes of The Ghost of Frankenstein, but the straight-armed thing ended up sticking around.

That being said, the movie itself was fairly entertaining. It wasn't A movie material, story-wise, but it was solid B movie fare. Boris Karloff did a really nice job playing vengeful-ex-convict-scientist Niemann, and J. Carrol Naish did an amazing job playing hopeful-then-vengeful-hunchbacked-ex-convict-scientist's-assistant. Really amazing--the movie's worth watching for that alone.

So far our new monster is stacking up pretty well to days gone by. But how'd he do in the giant-ness department? Let's take a look.

The Oversize Or Not Shot:

Stay back, copper, or the doc here gets it!

I searched and searched for a decent production still with HofF's monster next to an average fella. The monster had even less screen time here than he did in Wolf Man, and most of it was spent on a slab. Finally just went with a screen shot of the monster and the mad doc (or the mad doc's stunt double, at least). And what it tells us is that...

...the monster did okay in the giant-ness department. At least, compared to the last film. But it was entirely through actor's merits, I'm afraid. While this movie and those that followed didn't lift a filmatic finger to make the monster look bigger than life, Mr. Strange did what he could to take care of that himself. The fellow was six and a half feet tall in his stocking feet, after all. Give him the same five inches we've given to all the other actors in makeup, and he's standing about 6' 10". Not too far from the seven foot minimum-for-respectability my mind has decided on for the monster.

So filmmakers lose points for not trying to give the monster even a little more height than Strange brought to the role, but Strange himself get points for, well, being a big guy and using that to the monster's advantage. Okay, I guess filmmakers get some credit, for choosing Strange in the first place. I am an equitable man.

On to the House of Dracula.

---

House of Dracula (1945)

The Mug Shot:

Don't come in! I'm nekkid! (Get it? NECK-id?)

Holy cow that monster's neck looks sooo looong right now! But rest assured he's pretty much identical to the monster in the previous film. The two were only released a year apart, and with the same actor and makeup artist (still Jack Pierce after all this time) for both monsters, they were bound to be twinners.

I'm pretty sure this movie gave the monster the very, very least amount of screen time of any of the Universals. His screen time had been declining ever since he started sharing his films with other beasties, starting with the Wolf Man. But he was barely in this film at all. And most of the time he did have on screen was spent lying around unconscious. Lame.

The Full-Length Cadaver Shot:

I am lurking about in the House of Franken--er, DRACULA!

Like I said, pretty much identical monsters in these last two films. I'm just going off faith and the photo's caption to know that this Cadaver Shot isn't actually from the previous movie. Still, he looks good though, huh?

The Oversize Or Not Shot:

It's an ORGY of VIOLENCE!

More of the same, here, bigness-wise. Nobody at the film's creative level is doing anything to make this monster larger than average, but Strange's real life height comes to the rescue again. 6' 2" Talbot and 6' 10" monster menacing each other. Wait, I guess Talbot has been cured (again) of his Wolf Man-ism by this point in the movie, so he can't really be very menacing to the monster, even with a gun. Guess it's the monster doing the menacing, then. It's nice to see the monster having a little headroom, in this set of films, regardless of how he came about it.

So, while there were a few unintentionally funny bits (for modern viewers, anyway) in some of these Universal films over the years, they were always played as straight up horror films, at least to this point. That (sadly, in my mind) changed with the next--and final--entry for the series.

---

  Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

The Mug Shot:

Sleepy... I am getting SLEEPY... I mean, YOU are getting... oh, damn it.

This movie was designed from the ground up to be a horror-comedy. Now, I'm not a fan of horror-comedies in general, but this one is regarded pretty favorably. And, having seen it myself, it IS reasonably funny at times, even with my not being naturally attracted to such things. I enjoyed House of Frankenstein's straight up B movie horror-ness more than I liked what was well done attempt at A-List horror-comedy, here. But that's just me.

So. Let's take a look at Abbott and Costello's monster.

The big news here is that Jack Pierce, who had done makeup for every film we've looked at in the series so far, was gone for this one. He was replaced by Bud Westmore, a talented and well known makeup guy, known for his work on films like Creature From the Black Lagoon and This Island Earth. He didn't use Pierce's artistic build-it-up-from-scratch approach, favoring the newfangled (read as cheaper and quicker) rubber appliance approach. It led to a simpler look for the monster, overall, but he threw in his own changes to mark his territory as well.

Such as, you ask?

Let's see: that forehead scar has changed quite a bit from what it had more or less been, over the last few movies. And the neck bolts are a lot higher than they were. And, while it's not as apparent from the photos I have here (but having just re-watched the movie), I'd swear that his flat top forehead is considerably higher than in previous films.

The monster's eyelids look like they might be heavier, too. And I think his hair, at the sides of his head, had always run more or less vertically. But here, it looks like it's been brushed straight back. Also, the monster's always had maybe two staples visible at the top of his forehead, now he's got several. And I think the black of each of his lips is thicker, top to bottom, than previously.

Whew! That's a lot of little changes, all at once. But even so, the monster still looks like himself. Hmm. This mug shot reminds me a little of the Frankenstein mug shot alternate:

They both have that sense of... dim-witted pathos, for lack of a better phrase. A similar feel amid a lot of little, and not so little, physical differences.

Full length?

The Full-Length Cadaver Shot:

The monster picks up a few extra bucks working as a mime on the Universal back lot.

Again, no surprises, and isn't it nice to see our monster with his arms and hands somewhere other than straight out in front of him? Wow. Those boots are the fake-est, most movie-prop-iest boots I have ever seen on the monster. I bet they were also the most comfortable to wear, though. And that outfit is CLEAN. No stomping around in forests and swamps for this guy. At least, not on picture day.

Okay. One last size comparison....

The Oversize Or Not Shot:

We're so SCARY! And FUNNY!

Looks like a scene from a Scooby Doo cartoon. Which pretty much fits the movie's vibe, I guess.

I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking that the monster's boots, as well as his new Westmore foam rubber head appliance, are taller than they were in the last two movies. If so, our monster might just have grown that extra couple of inches he needed to get to his long ago publicized seven feet of height. Looks like it could be the case, from this shot, anyway. Then again, Abbot and Costello were 5' 8" and 5' 5", respectively. So maybe that's all I'm seeing, here.

Welp. That's it. Last film in the series has been monster-compared. All in all, I'd say the monster started off high in Frankenstein and Bride, then slid down over the course of Son and Ghost to his all time low in Wolf Man, followed by a moderate rise in glory with HofF, HofD, and ACmF. Never did reach his first heights, but the monster in those last few movies had his own low rent charm.

The End. Of my Universal Frankenstein's Monster comparison. w00t!

---

The Head Shot(s):

Look at that: The man just oozes Dracula. There is no monster oozing, though.

But not quite the end. We have these head shots to look at right quick. Amazing that such a handsome fellow as Lugosi was could look so wrong in that makeup.

Glenn Strange: The Comeback Kid. Get it? Cause he helped the monster make a comeback?

Man, I couldn't find any shots of Strange completely out of character, so a cowboy picture had to do. I think he was a little heavier by the time he was doing his monster roles. Anyway.

This! Is! Now! The! End! Really!!!

Sharks, Crabs, Vampires and Craig - A Library Thriller

So I went to the library to check out some books.

"Excuse me," I asked. "Do you have Craig Ferguson's new memoir, American on Purpose?"

Ms. Moanz - former playmate and current head librarian - looked up, her smoldering eyes meeting mine and then moving lazily down my body: shoulders... chest... stomach....

Her examination apparently blocked by the waist-height checkout counter, she leaned out and across, firm breasts thrust into prominence by her form fitting v-neck sweater, to continue. Liking what she saw, her lips pursed into an "O" of sensual satisfaction and a tiny gasp escaped her throat, drawing looks from other patrons and at least one of the other staff.

"Thank heavens I wore the extra large codpiece today," I thought to myself.

Then, without warning, an explosion erupted in the room's audio-visual lab!

I whirled, searching for it's cause, and watched as six men wearing ski masks rushed through the browsing area, automatic weapons in hand. One separated from the others and, arm cocked, prepared to lob a second grenade, this one into the nearly filled-to-capacity children's story hour area.

"Not on my watch, friend!" I muttered.

Ducking behind 'Fiction: Ha-Ho', I unholstered the government-issue Walther P99 from my left shoulder and drew a bead over the man's forehead.

Calmly, I squeezed the trigger.

I told a coworker I was writing about my recent trip to the library - they thought it might be a dull subject and suggested I spice it up with a bit of sex and violence.

So. I spiced.

What ACTUALLY happened, is while I was looking over my Amazon Shopping List, woe-is-me-ing about not having any extra cash to throw its way, I REMEMBERED about the library. Libraries are so cool. And so free. I don't know why that never seems to stay in my brain for very long.

I decided to see if any of my shopping list was available in the library system. I found five books. A minute later they were all on hold and a day after that 4 of the 5 were ready to be picked up. Which they were, by me.

Now, with multiple books, the question always becomes (for me) which to read first, second and so on. I had my choice of giant killer crabs, giant killer sharks, Swedish vampire love and... Craig Ferguson's novel about a bunch of crazy degenerates.

It's a cinch that pretty much any monster wins out over Craig Ferguson (sorry Craig, but you're only a regular human). The vampire story promises to be good, but I'm not a huge vampire fan, overall. And while I pretty much love ALL giant killer things, sharks have been a fascination for me since I was a wee boy. And crabs... eh. They pinch. You avoid them on the beach. And so on.

Sharks took first place.

Meg: Hell's Aquarium

Now, this is not "just" a killer shark novel. No, this is the fourth installment in a killer shark novel SERIES. (Come to poppa! And yes, I've already read the other three.) None of the series is what you'd call "fine literature", but are all written by a talented guy who *obviously* loves giant killer things as much as I do.

I mean, how d'you go wrong with an 80 foot prehistoric momma shark, five 20-50 foot prehistoric baby sharks, all crammed into a Sea World type aquarium that's open to the public? Just how many things might potentially go awry in this situation?

So many things. So many. A thoroughly enjoyable book. Very gratifying.

Clickers

While crabs aren't as exciting as sharks, the ones herein WERE both giants and killers. That counts for something, so their book came next. It was a quick read. And it sucked. Started out well enough (though the writing was REALLY ham-fisted), with several isolated boat and beach goers getting sliced and diced by prehistoric crabs. Scream. Run. Stumble. Crunch.

But then the crab rampage inexplicably got eclipsed by the arrival of a bunch of creature-from-the-black-lagoon-ish things (carrying tridents, no less), who proceeded to run about stabbing and eating folks and blahdehdah blahdehdah blah. Tridents? I appreciated that the book's authors were (again, obviously) fellow lovers of giant killer things, but... I pretty much forced myself through the last hundred pages.

(I couldn't just STOP reading since you never know when things might start to improve.)

Let the Right One In

Badly in need of having my monster faith restored, this was my third read. This novel was... amazing.

A. MAZ. ING.

Bully-beleaguered boy meets up with creepily endearing vampire girl. Set in 1980s Stockholm, it tells of budding romance between lonely kid Oskar and just-as-lonely vampire Eli. First, they start a nerdy little friendship which then turns into a nerdy little romance. A chaste one, since they're only 13 and 12, respectively.

And don't let the word 'romance' throw you, there's plenty of vampire death and dismemberment in here too. (Plenty.) But its the writing in this thing that is so brilliant. The author magically breathes life into his characters, and by mid-story they feel like old friends (or enemies) that you know you're gonna miss (or breathe a sigh of relief) when they're gone. I'm guessing this guy could write about a kitchen broom in a corner and make it work.

Fantastic.

Between the Bridge and the River

So now, with nothing left to tempt me away, I'm in the middle of Ferguson's novel. Which is good. Monster free, but good. Sharp witted, sarcastic commentary. Interesting if somewhat creepy characters. It basically follows a couple of childhood pals through all the muckety-muck of their lives while they attempt to "find" themselves.

I'm more looking forward to the fifth book I put on hold - Ferguson's new memoir - American on Purpose. Yes, that really WAS one of the books I went to the library for. (And if THAT part of the story up top is true.... What else might be...?)

I gotta go clean my gun.