 |
| By M.W. Kaluta |
 |
| By Rudy Nebres |
 |
 |
| By Alan Davis |
 |
| By Pablo Marcos |
 |
| By George Barr |
 |
| By Mike Hoffman |
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Picture Perfect Special:
Princesses of Mars, Part Nine
Princesses of Mars, Part Nine
Welcome to an All-Star Edition of Princesses of Mars. In this installment, all the illustration are from top illustrators in the comic book and fantasy illustration field.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Celebrating Dracula, Part Three
Here's a third and final collection of line drawing of the King of Vampires, offered in observation of the month when Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" was first published.
 |
| By Mike Hoffman |
 |
| By Dick Giordano |
 |
| By Mike Ploog |
 |
| By Gene Colan and Dave Gutierrez |
Monday, May 23, 2011
'The Amazing Transparent Man' not worth seeing
The Amazing Transparent Man (1960)
Starring: Douglas Kennedy, James Griffith, Marguerite Chapman, Ivan Triesault, and Red Morgan
Director: Edgar G. Ulmer
Rating: Four of Ten Stars
Major Krenner (Griffith), the insane commander of a mercenary army forces an ex-Nazi scientist (Triesault) to perfect a process to turn living things invisible. He breaks Joey Faust (Kennedy), a famed bank robber out of prison to use him to do double-duty as a final field test and to steal an unstable radioactive isotope that will make the invisibility process more effective. But the psychopath failed to take into account the stubborn nature of the sociopath... and the now-invisible Faust runs wild.
"The Amazing Transparent Man" is a title that reflects more the hopes of the filmmakers than the actual end result. Joey Faust is one of the least amazing invisible men I've come across, being devoid of imagination or ambition and merely setting his mind to using his invisible state to resume his career as a safe-cracker. In some ways, Faust's lack of ambition seems to mirror that of the screenwriter behind this film. The script offers a constant promise of better things to come, yet the writer never manages to capitalize on those ideas.
This is a film that could have successfully merged sci-fi with film-noirish crime thrills in a way similar to the classic "The Walking Dead", or it could have heighten the horror present by bringing to the fore the darkness in the soul of an otherwise good person with the captured scientist becoming as ruthless as the heroine in "The Man Who Changed His Mind" in an attempt to save a loved one. At the very least, director Ulmer could have tried to live up to his own proven ability to direct movies that take full advantage of the darkness within the characters featured, like he did with "The Black Cat" and "Strange Woman".
I mention those films, because they all came to mind while I watched "The Amazing Transparent Man" as I saw opportunity after opportunity for some good slip by. The actors all give performances better than the script deserves and the same can be said of the technical crew, but nothing they do can make up for the fact that the film's story only works because the main characters behave the way they do or the story would fall apart, and the police are so dumb that even Inspector Clouseau would be embarrassed on their behalf.
What really does the movie in, though, is the inability of Ulmer or the writer to take advantage of the horror situation they've set up. Neither Major Krenner nor Joey Faust are used to their fullest potential as characters... neither exhibiting the dark and foul nature that their dialogue implies they possess and that other characters claim they have. Faust ultimately emerges as an interesting character because he takes on the hero mantle for no reason other than Krenner has ticked him off, but Krenner comes across as idiotic rather than evil; he's the leader of a mercenary army who is supposedly adept at forcing others to do his bidding by knowing their weak spots and exploiting them ruthlessly, yet he picks a man with no attachments to speak of and no concerns beyond fulfilling his own desires to be the subject for the ultimate trial of the invisibility process. That's the act of someone who is not crazy, but stupid.
The ultimate demonstration of incompetent story-telling in this film comes when the secret behind a locked door around much build-up has taken place is revealed. Supposedly, Krenner is keeping the young daughter of the ex-Nazi scientist prisoner in the room, but he forbids anyone to enter it. When Faust finally does break it open, there could have been an opportunity for tragedy, horror, or even pathos. Instead, it's anti-climactic disappointment. The gun over the fireplace might have gotten fired, but the only thing that came out of the muzzle was a flag with "Bang!" written on it.
"The Amazing Transparent Man" can be found in several sci-fi and horror-oriented DVD collections of old movies. You should save it for a time you've watched everything else whatever set you encounter it in has to offer.
Starring: Douglas Kennedy, James Griffith, Marguerite Chapman, Ivan Triesault, and Red Morgan
Director: Edgar G. Ulmer
Rating: Four of Ten Stars
Major Krenner (Griffith), the insane commander of a mercenary army forces an ex-Nazi scientist (Triesault) to perfect a process to turn living things invisible. He breaks Joey Faust (Kennedy), a famed bank robber out of prison to use him to do double-duty as a final field test and to steal an unstable radioactive isotope that will make the invisibility process more effective. But the psychopath failed to take into account the stubborn nature of the sociopath... and the now-invisible Faust runs wild.
"The Amazing Transparent Man" is a title that reflects more the hopes of the filmmakers than the actual end result. Joey Faust is one of the least amazing invisible men I've come across, being devoid of imagination or ambition and merely setting his mind to using his invisible state to resume his career as a safe-cracker. In some ways, Faust's lack of ambition seems to mirror that of the screenwriter behind this film. The script offers a constant promise of better things to come, yet the writer never manages to capitalize on those ideas.
This is a film that could have successfully merged sci-fi with film-noirish crime thrills in a way similar to the classic "The Walking Dead", or it could have heighten the horror present by bringing to the fore the darkness in the soul of an otherwise good person with the captured scientist becoming as ruthless as the heroine in "The Man Who Changed His Mind" in an attempt to save a loved one. At the very least, director Ulmer could have tried to live up to his own proven ability to direct movies that take full advantage of the darkness within the characters featured, like he did with "The Black Cat" and "Strange Woman".
I mention those films, because they all came to mind while I watched "The Amazing Transparent Man" as I saw opportunity after opportunity for some good slip by. The actors all give performances better than the script deserves and the same can be said of the technical crew, but nothing they do can make up for the fact that the film's story only works because the main characters behave the way they do or the story would fall apart, and the police are so dumb that even Inspector Clouseau would be embarrassed on their behalf.
What really does the movie in, though, is the inability of Ulmer or the writer to take advantage of the horror situation they've set up. Neither Major Krenner nor Joey Faust are used to their fullest potential as characters... neither exhibiting the dark and foul nature that their dialogue implies they possess and that other characters claim they have. Faust ultimately emerges as an interesting character because he takes on the hero mantle for no reason other than Krenner has ticked him off, but Krenner comes across as idiotic rather than evil; he's the leader of a mercenary army who is supposedly adept at forcing others to do his bidding by knowing their weak spots and exploiting them ruthlessly, yet he picks a man with no attachments to speak of and no concerns beyond fulfilling his own desires to be the subject for the ultimate trial of the invisibility process. That's the act of someone who is not crazy, but stupid.
The ultimate demonstration of incompetent story-telling in this film comes when the secret behind a locked door around much build-up has taken place is revealed. Supposedly, Krenner is keeping the young daughter of the ex-Nazi scientist prisoner in the room, but he forbids anyone to enter it. When Faust finally does break it open, there could have been an opportunity for tragedy, horror, or even pathos. Instead, it's anti-climactic disappointment. The gun over the fireplace might have gotten fired, but the only thing that came out of the muzzle was a flag with "Bang!" written on it.
"The Amazing Transparent Man" can be found in several sci-fi and horror-oriented DVD collections of old movies. You should save it for a time you've watched everything else whatever set you encounter it in has to offer.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Should we feel sorry for the End-of-Worlders?
Writing on the New Republic website, under the headline "Too Much Judgement: The Media's Shameful, Cruel Obsession With Those Awaiting The Rapture", Tiffany Stanley provides a serious-minded article on the Rapture of May 21 That Didn't Happen (well, there's an hour to go, but the smart money's on "no Rapture today").
For me, the most thought-providing bit was this: "Do the end-timers seem ignorant? Yes. Are they insane? Possibly. But should our reaction to them be chuckling glee or something more like sadness?":
Should we feel sadness that there are people whose lives are so miserable they spend their days dreaming about being taken away to Heaven?
Perhaps.
And we should probably also ask why we take such delight in mocking them. (I know why I do it... I'm a mean-spirited bastard. Don't know about anyone else, though.)
For me, the most thought-providing bit was this: "Do the end-timers seem ignorant? Yes. Are they insane? Possibly. But should our reaction to them be chuckling glee or something more like sadness?":
Should we feel sadness that there are people whose lives are so miserable they spend their days dreaming about being taken away to Heaven?
Perhaps.
And we should probably also ask why we take such delight in mocking them. (I know why I do it... I'm a mean-spirited bastard. Don't know about anyone else, though.)
Friday, May 20, 2011
It's 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day 2011'!
Why we draw:
And we'll keep drawing until they get the message. Click here for my 2011 ceremonial Mo-toon.
Death threats and actual murders are not an appropriate response mere words and scribbles on pieces of paper. If Muslims want the world to respect them and their all-precious Prophet, they need to behave like they are deserving of respect and they need to join in the condemnation of those who don't. Like, for example condemning in no uncertain terms those who issue death threats or commit mayhem and murder over "blasphemy against the Prophet" instead of making excuses for them.
And we'll keep drawing until they get the message. Click here for my 2011 ceremonial Mo-toon.
Death threats and actual murders are not an appropriate response mere words and scribbles on pieces of paper. If Muslims want the world to respect them and their all-precious Prophet, they need to behave like they are deserving of respect and they need to join in the condemnation of those who don't. Like, for example condemning in no uncertain terms those who issue death threats or commit mayhem and murder over "blasphemy against the Prophet" instead of making excuses for them.
It's 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day 2011'!
Later today, I'll be posting some oldies-but-goodies I've been saving for Mohammed Mondays, but if you have original black-and-white Mo-toons you would like me to host, I'll be happy to put them up. Just send them to me as email attachments. You can also click here to see my contribution to this blessed day when sane people let blood-thirsty idol-worshipers know that they don't scare us, and that we don't subscribe to their belief that drawings of the Prophet Mohammed (may peas be upon him) have the power to corrupt the souls of human beings.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Celebrating Dracula, Part Two
Here are a few more illustrations of the world's most famous vampire, in celebration of the month when Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was originally published in 1897.
 |
| By David Hoover |
 |
| By Chris Samnee |
 |
| By Tony Harris |
 |
| By Dick Giordano |
 |
| By Gene Colan |
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Batman that I can't love
DC Showcase Presents: Batman, Volume One (DC Comics, 2007)
Writers: Ed Herron, Gardner Fox, John Broome, and Bill Finger
Artists: Carmine Infantino, Bob Kane, Murphy Anderson, and Various
Rating: Five of Ten Stars
Batman and the characters of the Fantastic Four are my favorite superheroes. But the FF left me behind some time in the early 1990s--the issue with the image of the Wizard snatching Franklin from a sleeping Ben Grimm is the last FF story I acknowledge--and Batman moved beyond me around the time "Batman Year Two" saw print.
With the FF, I LOVE everything from the first issue (where they were Kirby's recasting of DC's Challengers of the Unknown with superpowers) through the above-mentioned issue, which was #302 or something like that. I like the FF as porrtrayed in the "Spider-Girl" M2 universe, but mainline Marvel is dead to me. (Okay... I could do wihtout most of the Inhumans, but Crystal and her romance with Johnny I liked.)
With Batman, I LOVE just about everything from the late 1970s through the early 1990s... "Detective Comics", "Batman", "Batman Family", "The Brave & the Bold", "Worlds Finest's Comics"... I love 'em all. The Doug Moench scripted, Don Newton/Gene Colan/Alfredo Alcala illustrated tales in "Detective" and "Batman" are the high points of my Batman experience, along with the Bob Haney-written, Jim Aparo illustrated tales from "The Brave and the Bold".
So, I figured I'd enjoy "Showcase Presents: Batman"--a massive, 500+ page book reprinting stories from "Detective Comics" #327-342 and "Batman" #164-174--because I love the FF from the same period, and I greatly enjoy the 1960s Batman TV show.
I was, however, wrong. While I detest the psychotic, grim-and-gritty Batman that came into fashion in the 1990s, I found myself equally turned off by the frivolous stories in this volume. They were virtually all forgettable, too cutesy and self-consciously camp, and downright embarrassing whenever they attempted to get "hip." Even the great artwork of Carmine Infantino can't dress up these turkeys... and the always mediocre Bob Kane only manages to drag down a few of the better tales. (Yes, he created Batman... and yes, I enjoy the early tales he produced. But there were far more talented creators working at the same time he was.)
There were a few memorable highlights--such as when the killed off Alfred to the point where his dead body is even shown on panel--and a handful of borderline film-noir crime tales and a couple of stories featuring Patricia Powell, a clever police woman and potential romantic interest for both Bruce Wayne and Batman. (The only two things I'm curious about in this book is how Alfred came back to life, and whatever happened to Powell. Maybe I'll have to pick up Volume 2 and find out.)
It's interesting to me that Batman is such a huge character, given that comics from the same period featuring Hawkman, Elongated Man, and the Flash were so vastly superior. The power of marketing and branding at work, I suppose. I can, however, easily see why Marvel Comics caught on the way they did. The quality of those early Marvel tales are heads and shoulders above those featuring the DC headliners of Superman and Batman.
Writers: Ed Herron, Gardner Fox, John Broome, and Bill Finger
Artists: Carmine Infantino, Bob Kane, Murphy Anderson, and Various
Rating: Five of Ten Stars
Batman and the characters of the Fantastic Four are my favorite superheroes. But the FF left me behind some time in the early 1990s--the issue with the image of the Wizard snatching Franklin from a sleeping Ben Grimm is the last FF story I acknowledge--and Batman moved beyond me around the time "Batman Year Two" saw print.
With the FF, I LOVE everything from the first issue (where they were Kirby's recasting of DC's Challengers of the Unknown with superpowers) through the above-mentioned issue, which was #302 or something like that. I like the FF as porrtrayed in the "Spider-Girl" M2 universe, but mainline Marvel is dead to me. (Okay... I could do wihtout most of the Inhumans, but Crystal and her romance with Johnny I liked.)
With Batman, I LOVE just about everything from the late 1970s through the early 1990s... "Detective Comics", "Batman", "Batman Family", "The Brave & the Bold", "Worlds Finest's Comics"... I love 'em all. The Doug Moench scripted, Don Newton/Gene Colan/Alfredo Alcala illustrated tales in "Detective" and "Batman" are the high points of my Batman experience, along with the Bob Haney-written, Jim Aparo illustrated tales from "The Brave and the Bold".
So, I figured I'd enjoy "Showcase Presents: Batman"--a massive, 500+ page book reprinting stories from "Detective Comics" #327-342 and "Batman" #164-174--because I love the FF from the same period, and I greatly enjoy the 1960s Batman TV show.
I was, however, wrong. While I detest the psychotic, grim-and-gritty Batman that came into fashion in the 1990s, I found myself equally turned off by the frivolous stories in this volume. They were virtually all forgettable, too cutesy and self-consciously camp, and downright embarrassing whenever they attempted to get "hip." Even the great artwork of Carmine Infantino can't dress up these turkeys... and the always mediocre Bob Kane only manages to drag down a few of the better tales. (Yes, he created Batman... and yes, I enjoy the early tales he produced. But there were far more talented creators working at the same time he was.)
There were a few memorable highlights--such as when the killed off Alfred to the point where his dead body is even shown on panel--and a handful of borderline film-noir crime tales and a couple of stories featuring Patricia Powell, a clever police woman and potential romantic interest for both Bruce Wayne and Batman. (The only two things I'm curious about in this book is how Alfred came back to life, and whatever happened to Powell. Maybe I'll have to pick up Volume 2 and find out.)
It's interesting to me that Batman is such a huge character, given that comics from the same period featuring Hawkman, Elongated Man, and the Flash were so vastly superior. The power of marketing and branding at work, I suppose. I can, however, easily see why Marvel Comics caught on the way they did. The quality of those early Marvel tales are heads and shoulders above those featuring the DC headliners of Superman and Batman.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Celebrating Dracula, Part One
In May of 1897, Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" was first published. It went on to popularize vampires and become one of the most adapted books ever. Counting the numerous spin-offs, Dracula may well be the most written-about figure in all of pop culture.
This is the first in a series of posts presenting artist visions of the King of Vampires. This week's selection are all interpretations of Dracula as viewed through the editorial lens of Marvel Comics.
This is the first in a series of posts presenting artist visions of the King of Vampires. This week's selection are all interpretations of Dracula as viewed through the editorial lens of Marvel Comics.
 |
| By Russ Heath |
 |
| By Dick Giordano |
 |
| By Gene Colan |
 |
| By Bob Hall |
Monday, May 9, 2011
Featuring the craziest pre-1960s femme fatale?
Night Editor (1946)
Starring: William Gargan, Paul E. Burns, Janis Carter, Frank Wilcox, and Jeff Donnell
Director: Henry Levin
Rating: Six of Ten Stars
A homicide detective (Gargan) having an affair with a thrill-seeking married wealthy woman (Carter) witnesses a murder during one of their trysts. Even though he can identify and arrest the killer (Wilcox), he can't do so without causing a scandal, destroying his family and ruining his career. Will a good cop who made a bad call do the right thing, or go further down the path of corruption?
This is the stuff good 1940s film noirs and crime dramas are made of, and this is pretty good crime drama. Part proto-police procedural, part film noir, part melodrama, this film is fun! It gets really exciting when classism enters the picture, and the psycho dame the cop is fooling around with decides to choose between "her kind" and doing the right thing when the cop's conscience really starts bothering him. It's a nice twist that comes at just the right moment to kick the film's suspense level up even higher.
While the high quality of the film--with its perfect pacing, appropriately moody lighting, superior cinematography, and a cast that gives excellent performances all around--is to be expected from a major studio like Columbia, the film offers the surprise of what is perhaps the most sociopathic/borderline psychopathic femme fatale I recall seeing in a Hollywood movie made before the 1960s. From her demand to see the body of the murder victim to the icepick action late in the film, I was surprised by just how nasty she was. She makes the crazy scheming women of "Strange Woman" and "Lady From Shanghai" look like they should be selling Girl Scout cookies. While Janis Carter made a career out of playing characters like this, this is the most twisted character I've ever seen her play, and I wonder if this extreme character could be a reason the film sank from view after its initial release.
The only serious complaint I have with "Night Editor" is that they filmmakers, aside from the cars being driven, didn't make even a halfhearted attempt to match the look of the characters to the late 1920s time-frame the bulk of it takes place in. Would it really have been that hard for a major operation like Columbia to adjust the hairstyles of the women and get proper wardrobe for the entire cast instead of having everyone in contemporary mid-1940s styles?
A smaller complaint is that the film's resolution is ultimately predictable (doubly-so if you pay close attention to the exchanges that take place in the newsroom as the story unfolds). However, getting there is so much fun that it doesn't really matter.
Fans of film noir pictures, classic mysteries, and the type of crime dramas where the hero has to work backwards to prove the guilt of a murderer he has already identified will find plenty of entertainment here. This is one of the many movies that could do with a little more recognition from us film-fans.
Trivia: "Night Editor" was a popular radio anthology series where the editor of title would relate the "unreported facts" of some news item. It later became a television series.
Starring: William Gargan, Paul E. Burns, Janis Carter, Frank Wilcox, and Jeff Donnell
Director: Henry Levin
Rating: Six of Ten Stars
A homicide detective (Gargan) having an affair with a thrill-seeking married wealthy woman (Carter) witnesses a murder during one of their trysts. Even though he can identify and arrest the killer (Wilcox), he can't do so without causing a scandal, destroying his family and ruining his career. Will a good cop who made a bad call do the right thing, or go further down the path of corruption?
This is the stuff good 1940s film noirs and crime dramas are made of, and this is pretty good crime drama. Part proto-police procedural, part film noir, part melodrama, this film is fun! It gets really exciting when classism enters the picture, and the psycho dame the cop is fooling around with decides to choose between "her kind" and doing the right thing when the cop's conscience really starts bothering him. It's a nice twist that comes at just the right moment to kick the film's suspense level up even higher.
While the high quality of the film--with its perfect pacing, appropriately moody lighting, superior cinematography, and a cast that gives excellent performances all around--is to be expected from a major studio like Columbia, the film offers the surprise of what is perhaps the most sociopathic/borderline psychopathic femme fatale I recall seeing in a Hollywood movie made before the 1960s. From her demand to see the body of the murder victim to the icepick action late in the film, I was surprised by just how nasty she was. She makes the crazy scheming women of "Strange Woman" and "Lady From Shanghai" look like they should be selling Girl Scout cookies. While Janis Carter made a career out of playing characters like this, this is the most twisted character I've ever seen her play, and I wonder if this extreme character could be a reason the film sank from view after its initial release.
The only serious complaint I have with "Night Editor" is that they filmmakers, aside from the cars being driven, didn't make even a halfhearted attempt to match the look of the characters to the late 1920s time-frame the bulk of it takes place in. Would it really have been that hard for a major operation like Columbia to adjust the hairstyles of the women and get proper wardrobe for the entire cast instead of having everyone in contemporary mid-1940s styles?
A smaller complaint is that the film's resolution is ultimately predictable (doubly-so if you pay close attention to the exchanges that take place in the newsroom as the story unfolds). However, getting there is so much fun that it doesn't really matter.
Fans of film noir pictures, classic mysteries, and the type of crime dramas where the hero has to work backwards to prove the guilt of a murderer he has already identified will find plenty of entertainment here. This is one of the many movies that could do with a little more recognition from us film-fans.
Trivia: "Night Editor" was a popular radio anthology series where the editor of title would relate the "unreported facts" of some news item. It later became a television series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
