cinema history class: mystery of the wax museum

 Session: Pre-Code 1932 Horror on Tap, Week 1
Movie: Mystery of The Wax Museum (1933)
Directed by Michael Curtiz

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A talented but crazed artist has an unorthodox method of creating his sculptures. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

First, a bit of housekeeping. This session focuses on pre-code movies from 1932. Though it was released in 1933, MysWaxMus was filmed in 1932 and therefore qualifies.

The visuals in this film are, for the most part, stunning. I was expecting to see something visually comparable to Freaks or Island of Lost Souls, but I was pleasantly surprised by the vivid color. MysWaxMus was the last feature film made with the two-stroke Technicolor process. And the makeup -- particularly on Lionell Atwill when we are supposed to see his grotesqu injuries -- was very well done. The whole effect of the film had a feel of German expressionism. Similarly, the dialogue was snappy and crisp, with several characters delivering a lot of clever lines.

But the pieces just didn't come together for me. I really didn't find any of the characters interesting, and just couldn't find myself engaged with this movie.

Ratings:

Me: 6.5

Christina: 8

Ethan: 8.5

Sean: 3 out of 4

happy tunesday! (the let's all call up a.t.&t. and protest to the president march)

There's a subject I've brought up on other social media -- both Twitter and Facebook -- but not in this blog. I'm in the middle of a frustrating dispute with my cell service provider, AT&T.

Without going into excruciating detail, on August 8 I went into an AT&T store to replace my cell phone. They didn't have the one I wanted, but ordered it for me. With AT&T you can buy a phone and pay for it over 30 installments on your monthly bills (essentially an interest free loan), but you have to pay the sales tax up front. I would guess that that (or something similar) is the case with other major carriers, but I don't know for sure, which is why I am explaining it here. So I paid the taxes, planning to switch phones when the new one got to the store.

The store got the phone a few days later. But they sent it back to the warehouse before I could pick it up. That shouldn't create an intractable problem, but it did. For whatever reason, the warehouse doesn't have any record of receiving the phone back. Because of that, AT&T insists on acting as though I got the phone. I paid the sales tax up front, and the two statements since then both include installment charges.* By all appearances AT&T intends to continue charging me for this phone for another 28 months. I want the whole transaction reversed, so that I get refunded what I have already paid, and do not have future installments added to my bills.

I want I have made several trips back to the AT&T store where this started, and have spent many hours on the phone with AT&T's customer service. At the store they say they can't do anything for me -- that I have to call customer service and have them reverse the transaction. Customer service insists that this can only be handled by the store. I will (for now) spare my reader details of the cases opened by customer service and the multiple false promises that the representatives made to me.

At this point, I am not sure where to go next. Tonight I will be writing a letter to AT&T's CEO, John Stankey. Some friends suggested that I turn to one of those TV news advocates with names like "Seven on Your Side." I may pursue that. We'll see what else I can do, but it's dang frustrating.

FWIW, if you trying to decide what cell carrier to go with, or whether to switch carriers, please keep AT&T's egregiously bad customer service in mind.

Happy Tunesday.

____________________

*In addition, I was charged an upgrade fee at the start of this, but that was refunded. In addition, there is a $5 monthly charge for AT&T's optional "Next Up" program, which would give me the right to upgrade early and have AT&T waive future installments. This charge and program were not explained to me at the time and I did not consent to sign up for it.

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 22 -- devil's planet

Season 2, Episode 22: Devil's Planet
This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
After surveying a planet and realizing that everyone there is dead, Koenig finds himself on that planet's moon, where there's a penal colony. Prisoners are kept in line via the hope of returning to the planet -- not knowing that the return would be fatal.

My Thoughts
I remember when Star Trek: The Next Generation was first on TV, and they introduced the Ferengi. One of the stupid things about that new race was their weapons. They had these goofy energy whip things. Now I see that that was ripped off from S99. The guards keeping the prisoners in line with whips is just ridiculous looking. Maybe it was taken from Wonder Woman.

And that seems to be a good example of what's wrong with the episode. The idea behind it is interesting. And, done well, it could have been a compelling story. But it was put together so ham-handedly that I just had to laugh. Even the death scenes are comical. People step out of the transporter booth all smiles and happy. Then they get this melodramatic look on their faces, and keel over like high school actors. I really wanted to like this episode, but I just couldn't.

The thing that really puzzles me is the ending. It seems to me that once Koenig is rescued, the crew of Alpha should implement Operation Exodus and go to the planet of the dead people. Sure there's some kind of contagion that kills the natives of that planet, but we know that humans are immune. So why is there not even a mention of colonizing the world?

claptrap for those who are missing mad movie parodies

 

A long, long time ago I can still remember how the humor used to make me smile.

Mad Magazine was an institution when I was a kid, and there was a long stretch of time that I fervently looked forward to each new issue. And one of my favorite features was the movie parody. So it's kind of amusing that I would, in college, become friends with Desmond Devlin who would become one of Mad's most prolific writers -- both in general and of the movie parodies in particular. And, in fact, he helped me make my first (and, sadly, only) sale to Mad.

Des and I were friends for decades. We celebrated life's milestones. We consoled each other upon losses. And nobody ever wore a yarmulke as peculiarly as he did at my wedding.

And Des had an uncanny knack for drawing me. As one example, back in the 1990's I wanted to brew beer -- I have no idea why, since I don't drink beer. I think I really liked the prospect of making labels for it. Anyway, Des suggested I call it "Piggyback," which was a reference to an inside joke from our college days. I asked him to create a drawing for the label. Specifically, I asked him to draw a picture of "me riding a pig." He agreed, though he had an unorthodox interpretation of the word "riding." To the right is a picture of the last existing label from "Piggyback Ale."

But I digress.

After nearly 70 years, Mad stopped printing new material last year. I believe their last issue is coming out (or has come out?) this year, but I'm too lazy to look that up. No more Mad means no more Mad movie parodies. So Des and artist Tom Richmond are teaming up to put out a book of movie parodies in the style of the ones that appeared in Mad. Des is among the most prolific writers of these parodies and Tom is among the most prolific artists for them. Des and Tom have probably teamed up to do more of these parodies than any other writer/artist combination. So the form is in good hands with them. They're crowdfunding the project, which is the point of this post.

Please support Desmond's and Tom's project. There's lots of perks you can buy -- in fact, for the right price you can pick a movie you want them to parody, and they'll do it -- complete with a picture of you worked into it. To support them follow this indiegogo link. Tell 'em Moish sent you.

cinema history class: humanoids from the deep

Session: Aquatic Horrors, Week 4
Movie: Humanoids from the Deep (1980)
Directed by Barbara Peeters

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
A fishing village is terrorized by invading amphibious monsters. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

In the last post about the cinema history class, I proclaimed Frogs the best killer amphibian movie I'd ever seen. I stand by that assessment, but Humanoids from the Deep (originally titled Killer Humanoids from the Deep) gives it a run for the money. And, as long as we're doing some housekeeping, let me note that I think most of the frogs we kept seeing in Frogs were actually toads.

In contrast to Frogs, which took its time building tension, HftD gets us started with a bang, and doesn't really slow down. Subtlety is largely written out of the script in favor of a construction that resembles the slasher movies that were gaining popularity around that time. I'm not an expert on the subject, but there were a lot of stylistic similarities between this movie and Halloween. And, while we're at it, there was an obvious Alien ripoff moment.

Unlike Frogs, HftD  has the familiar "all hell's broken out and we're all gonna die" crowd scene as its climactic scene, and I'd forgotten how satisfying such a scene can be.

Ratings:

Me: 9

Christina: 9.5 (as the ultimate monster movie)

Ethan: 8

Sean: 3 out of 4

it's zmedsday!! (xcii)

 

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 21 -- dorzak

Season 2, Episode 21: Dorzak
This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
The moon encounters a ship that's signalling it has a plague. Despite the plague, its captain signals she must land. It turns out that the "plague" is a Psychon -- presumably the only surviving Psychon other than Maya -- who is being held in stasis because of his criminal nature and his hypnotic ability to control others.

My Thoughts
There's too much in this episode that doesn't make any sense. From the way Dorzak is portrayed, to the unexplained fact that Maya's perception of him is so terribly wrong. Perhaps if there were some action, then the logical flaws could be forgiven. But as it is this is just slow-moving and boring. It's supposed to be a kind of three-way chess match between the Alpha crew, Dorzac and Sahala (the alien ship's captain). But the twists and turns are largely predictable.

I suppose that if I want to find something good to say about this episode (which I don't, but what the hell), I'll note that I like the way they worked Tony's beer-brewing into the story-line. In fact, a part of the plot turns on Tony's beer. Still, though, no follow-up on Helena's sculpting.

cinema history class: frogs

Session: Aquatic Horrors, Week 3
Movie: Frogs (1972)
Directed by George McCowan

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
Swamp critters start exacting revenge against a family of polluters. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

Our in-class discussions have often turned to the topic of Joe's wheelhouse -- those movies that are his cinematic comfort food. Having mentioned that, I'll note that it seems to be the 1960s vividly colored horror movies, often starring Vincent Price. And if Joe is reading this post and I have that wrong, I am sure he will comment to that effect. Unlike Joe, I never really thought of myself as having a cinematic wheelhouse; I did the most movie watching in the 1980s and liked a lot of those films, but I don't think I feel the same attachment to them that Joe does to the Hammer horror films.

I bring that up because, before class last week I watched the trailer for Frogs, and realized that my wheelhouse -- if I can be said to have one -- is the 1970s action/adventure/disaster movies. Watching the Frogs trailer, I could tell that we weren't exactly in for Citizen Kane*, but I also realized that this was the kind of movie that I would love.

Frogs does a really good job of making the titular animals seem menacing. Almost from the beginning, they're everywhere -- watching, waiting. And the camera  makes them seem sinister and calcu8lating in a way that I realize -- or at least I hope -- they aren't in actuality. There may be some false advertising at work here, since the frogs don't actually kill anyone. They're the ringleaders, leaving the killing to their allies, including (but not limited to) spiders, snakes and Spanish moss. And the slow progression of menace brings the movie slowly to a boil, so the viewer has trouble even realizing when things went off the rails.

Oddly I found the penultimate scene puzzling. The way it progressed and ended, I thought it was the end of the movie. But then the final scene, following closely on its heels also felt like a perfect ending. It appears to me that they wrote and shot two final scenes, before deciding which to put last. Both endings are well-done, and either would be worthy. But it's kind of jarring when we go from the first ending back into the film.

Frogs is a much better movie than it has any right to be, and is probably the best killer amphobian movie I've ever had the pleasure of seeing.

 

Ratings:

Me: 9

Christina: 9.3

Ethan: 6

Sean: 2 out of 4

*By coincidence I just recently watched Citizen Kane with Sharon on a Saturday morning.

it's zmedsday!! (xci)

 

happy tunesday: a fifth of beethoven

 I read an article online today that argued that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is exclusionary because reasons. I'm not goinfmg to share a link to the article and thereby support the online publication with clicks. But I will share this disco-ized version.

space: 1999 -- season 2 episode 20 -- the seance spectre

Season 2, Episode 20: The Seance Spectre
This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
The moon is on a collision course with a planet, so they have to blast it off course. Meanwhile, a messianic-type is leading a mutiny to prevent any moon-saving action.

My Thoughts
After the exciting two-parter, we get right back with a regular ho-hum episode. How many times has an episode hinged on the moon being on a collision course with something? At least this time it didn't end with some kind of weird existential mumbo jumbo like a couple of season one episodes whose names mercifully elude me. This time things are complicated by the messianic (and mentally ill) Sanderson who is convinced that the planet is habitable. In some ways it seems like an interesting character study. He's charismatic, and his followers are torn.

There are a couple of plot devices that seem unnecessary and implausible. Why did Sanderson and his followers hold some kind of seance to come to his determination that the planet is habitable? Surely the writers could have leveraged his charisma on that front. Related, as the episode opens, there is restricted access to the Command Center because Koenig is hesitant to raise the crew's hopes in case the planet turns out to be uninhabitable. After all these episodes, now he decides they can't handle it? I don't buy it. Especially since Alpha has gradually become more and more of a military outfit this season.

I continue to be of a mixed mind regarding Maya's shape-shifting. She does another one of her strong creature transformations, which look like someone went into the prop room or Party City looking for any weird costume. Of course, at another point, when Maya was trapped behind a chair after her eagle crashed, I found myself screaming at her --"Just turn yourself into a bird and fly away!" Instead she turned into child-Maya, which was actually a disturbing sight. Of course, turning herself into a tree when she did was actually a very clever plot device which I applaud. It also had the added benefit of being a fresh use of her ability.

I suppose I should acknowledge that if I was screaming at the screen (as I admitted to in the last paragraph), then the episode does have at least some suspense.

I note that we haven't heard mention of Tony's beer-brewing in quite a while, and there's been nothing about Helena's sculpting since it was first introduced. And, while we're onto random observations, it seems odd to me that, according to Helena's log entries, we are now in the sixth year since they left earth's orbit.

the upside of blog

I have now repeatedly come across a great advantage to blogging.

Time and again, on other social media platforms, I see discussions that I can contribute to. But what I want to say is longer than I really want to bother typing. This fact is on my mind because it happened for the nth (for some positive integer n) time today. Monica Lewinsky twote something about a recipe she experimented with. Since it involved combining sweet and savory, the subject turned to pineapple on pizza. This brought to mind my experiment with kiwi pizza -- something I blogged about a year or so ago. So instead of retyping the whole thing (which would have been a tweetstorm), I could simply link to my blogpost.

This kind of this seems to happen a lot. Well, maybe not a lot. But enough that I've gotten to seeing this as a real advantage to blogging.

it's zmedsday!! (xc)

 

cinema history class: screamers

Session: Aquatic Horrors, Week 2
Movie: Screamers (1979)
Directed by Sergio Martino

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
In the Caribbean, a greedy sadist is using a race of fishmen to plunder the riches of Atlantis. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

I should mention at the outset that I don't like the title, Screamers. The original title, Island of the Fishmen is much better. When Roger Corman got his hands on the original Italian film, he cut out a half hour of footage that he felt slowed it down, added a new beginning (which really doesn't fit), and rebranded it. But, to my ears, Screamers sounds like a generic title that could be applied to a wide variety of movies. Island of the Fishmen is much more descriptive and evocative -- though it also may make the thing sound trashy. Which may be reasonably accurate.

As for why Corman's beginning doesn't fit, there are a few reasons, but what it comes down to is that his intro is more lurid and over-the-top than the rest of the film. There are shades of Return of the Living Dead, which set up the viewer to demand things of the plot which never get delivered. To a degree, Screamers is largely a retelling of Island of Dr. Moreau, but with fishmen. With that in mind, it's reasonably clear to follow.

I had a hard time seeing this as a 1979 movie, as it felt like something from two decades or so earlier. In some ways, my mind kept coming back to the classic monster movies from the 1950's except this was in color. Vivid color. And for some reason, when I wasn't thinking of those 1950's monster movies I was thinking of Jules Verne.

 

Ratings:

Me: 6.5

Christina: 9.1

Ethan: 7

Sean: 2 out of 4

space: 1999 -- season 2 episodes 18 and 19 -- the bringers of wonder

Season 2, Episodes 18 and 19: The Bringers of Wonder
This blog comes with the generalized warning that any post may contain spoilers. That is especially true of these Space: 1999 posts. So if you haven't seen this episode, intend to watch it, and therefore don't want spoilers, then don't read.

Plot Synopsis
An expedition has arrived from earth with the the news that, with new faster-than-light travel, they can bring the whole Alpha crew back home. But through Koenig's eyes these saviors are hideous monsters controlling everyone else's minds.

My Thoughts
The producers got ambitious, putting out a two-parter. Creatively, at least, it was a success, as this was one of the better episodes. The drama was quite effective, and they managed to pull off the suspense. And the moment where the first part ends is a good cliffhangery point, so kudos the them for that.

 But those costumes! For this episode they had to make the aliens very non-humanoid, and they succeeded at that. But what they ended up with were these blobs that kind of look like piles of vegetable refuse in back of a restaurant. And at some points they appear to shrug, which can be kind of comical. But I suspect that part of the problem is that I'm watching this on a high definition TV. These aliens weren't intended to be viewed in quite so crisp a format, and they probably looked better on TV's of the 1970's. Actually, that's true of a lot of the aliens in Space: 1999.

There's one way that I would have written this differently. The conflict in the show arises because the aliens need nuclear radiation; for them, it's food. When Koenig finds out he suggests that Alpha can just give the aliens their waste and it would be a win-win. But it's explained to Koenig that the aliens need an explosion, so they plan on detonating Alpha's nuclear waste dump (shades of the series premiere?), which will kill all the people of Alpha. What this means is that, for Alpha it becomes an "us or them" situation. If I were writing the screenplay, I would have worked it out so that Koenig's win-win can be worked out -- Maybe they build a protective shield; maybe they figure out a way to get the waste into space to explode away from Alpha. I don't know exactly how I'd do it, but I would do it. Now, that may be because I grew up watching Star Trek reruns. The way I would have it would be more in keeping with the Star Trek ethos. Of course, it's hard to say whether it's in keeping with the Space: 1999 ethos because, deep in the second half of the second season, there really isn't any coherent ethos.

I also notice that there's a certain flaw in the logic of the episode. The only reason Koenig doesn't fall for the aliens' mind control is that he had just undergone some kind of experimental brain therapy. The therapy was necessitated because he crashed an eagle. He crashed the eagle because the aliens were controlling his mind. They were controlling his mind because they wanted him to crash and die -- because they were concerned that, with his strong mind, he wouldn't fall for their mind control. Put simply, they controlled his mind to try to get him out of the way because they were worried they wouldn't be able to control his mind. So, that doesn't make sense. But, moreover, there's the irony that, if they had just left him alone, Koenig would have been taken in.

I have come to find that Maya, played by Catherine Schell, is increasingly annoying. Blair says she seems like a Dr. Who babe, but I can't really confirm or deny that -- I was never a big Whovian. But her shapeshifting is usually silly. They need someone strong, so she turns into a gorilla. Or a strong-looking alien. Or they need something strong and bitey so she turns into a tiger. It's tiresome. At least in this episode she turned into one of the aliens so she could spy on them. This led to one of the funnier moments, as the aliens realize that, though she looks like one of them, she is not. At any rate it's not clear to me why Maya found it particularly more repulsive to be one these aliens than any of the other things she's turned into.

At its end, the episode addresses the philosophical question which I believe underpins the movie, The Matrix. I say "I believe" because I have never seen that movie or its sequels. The issue? Suppose you could live out a full life of happiness, realizing your dreams and suffering no adversity. But it was all a lie -- a life you were living in your head while you were blissfully unaware of reality. Would it be better to have that life, or to live in reality? Koenig clearly prefers reality. I am not so sure I would.

As much as I have issues with it, this is really one of the best episodes in the series. Aside from the tension and suspense mentioned above, it got me thinking. And, despite a certain silliness, I kind of liked the aliens.

One final note: Part one contains the best quote from any episode of the show: "I haven't had so much fun since I burned grandma's wig!"

cinema history class: killer fish

 Session: Aquatic Horrors, Week 1

Movie: Killer Fish (1979)
Directed by Antonio Margheriti

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL

Plot:
In Brazil, a team of jewel thieves just have to wait out the heat. But they can't trust each other -- or the lake where they've hidden their stash. Hilarity ensues.

Reaction:

It felt odd to see Lee Majors in this; he was fresh off of The Six Million Dollar Man, and (I assume) at the height of his star power. So it's kind of hard to understand why he chose to do an Italian-produced low budget horror film. Maybe he wanted a paid vacation in Brazil? No matter. One effect of this was that, every time he crouched or looked intently at something, I expected to hear that distinctive sound effect indicating that he was using his bionic powers.

Truth be told, though, he wasn't the only "name" in this film -- though he was the biggest*. There was also Karen Black, James Franciscus and Margaux Hemingway. And, for comedic effect, there was Roy Brocksmith. And, more truth be told, my dismissive description of the film (see prior paragraph) doesn't really do it justice. Yeah -- I've seen a few reviews, and people like to talk crap about this film, but it's actually pretty entertaining.

Billed (and marketed) as a horror movie, it actually starts out as a caper film. The horror element doesn't really enter picture until pretty late going. And even once it does, it's handled in a subtle-enough way (at first) to keep some suspense going. Until things go completely shitfucked near the end, anyway. And all that is done well, except for that weird animated tornado. What was up with that?

There aren't really any "good guys" in the movie, and it's fun to watch an onscreen demonstration of the adage that there's "no honor among thieves." Or is there? I'll leave that to other viewers to decide. The fact is, I like it when the protagonists are a bit morally dubious, and that's what we have here. Perhaps that's the influence of the Italian movie industry behind it -- spaghetti westerns appeal to me for the same reason.

There are reasons to criticize this movie, but it's still a fun watch.

Ratings:

Me: 8

Christina: 8

Ethan: 8

Sean: 3 out of 4

*I think so, anyway. Am I wrong?

tom seaver: rip

The Franchise is dead. There is no other Franchise.

I'm kind of torn about how to approach this. I'm not a big baseball fan anymore. Arguably, I was never a big baseball fan -- I was a Mets fan. And, in particular, I was a Tom Seaver fan. Growing up as a Mets fan in the 1970's, there was no way to avoid being a Tom Seaver fan.

I was just a couple years too young to appreciate the Mets' world series victory in 1969 -- capping an ascent to respectability (and greatness?) that Seaver catalyzed. But he was the  Mets' biggest star for the first several years of my awareness of baseball. And so I followed him, and memorized his stats.

I was heartbroken when the Mets traded him in 1977, but I remained a fan of his -- which did cause me some level of internal conflict when he pitched against my Mets. I continued to memorize his statistics. I was happy for him when he pitched a no-hitter against the Cardinals in 1978, though I felt sad that he wasn't wearing a Mets uniform when he did it.

I could go on, but to what end?

When I would play ball with Jimmy or Anthony (who lived down the block from me), I was always pretending that I was Tom Seaver. Same when I played ball with my schoolmates, Morgan and Joel. Joel, for some reason, liked to pretend he was Vida Blue. I never figured that out.

The thing is, sports stars come and go. In the day, I rooted for Rusty Staub, for Daryl Strawberry, for Dwight Gooden. And for so many others. But Tom Seaver was the first ballplayer I rooted for as an individual (as opposed to as part of a team). And in the annals of the Mets, he was more than just a star. He was the franchise.

A part of my childhood died on Monday.

it's zmedsday!! (lxxxix)