Monster Island (2004)

Who’s In It: Carmen Electra (Aerobic Striptease), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The Thing), and Adam West (Batman)

What It’s About: A high school senior wins an MTV party for his class with Carmen Electra on a tropical island, but discovers the hard way that the island is crawling with giant insects and piranha people.

How It Is: Awful. And yet amazing.

Look, it’s a Carmen Electra vehicle and on the DVD cover she gets top billing with Nick Carter, who’s barely in the movie, so you know who the target audience is. Also, there are MTV VJs playing themselves. This movie shouldn’t work at all and for the first third, it really doesn’t. The main character (Daniel Letterle) is a sulky dude named Josh who’s just lost his girlfriend Maddy (Winstead) because she wants to be with someone who's interested in the world and has some purpose to his life. Letterie’s performance is as uninspired as his character, but maybe that’s what he’s going for. Either way, I didn’t care about Josh and quickly found myself hoping he’d connect with Carmen Electra so that he’d leave poor Maddy alone.

That wish is granted when Josh meets Carmen and bonds with her over Radiohead and the Ramones, but Maddy may not actually want Josh to leave her alone. Even though she’s already got a new, superboyfriend (who of course turns out to be a prick, but we only know that at this point because we’ve seen a high school movie before), she shows signs of jealousy over Josh’s new interest in Carmen. I was not willing to sit through an hour and a half of this, especially if it was going to stop every once in a while for Carmen to sing songs like the soul-crushingly insipid “Jungle Fever.”

The only thing that kept me going was knowing that Adam West was going to show up at some point as a character named Dr. Harryhausen. The set up might be all wrong, but I had a feeling that the movie’s heart was in the right place. And I was right.

When Carmen is abducted onstage by a giant, winged ant, Josh puts together some friends and MTV employees to go rescue her. That leads into the last two-thirds of the movie, in which Carmen’s presence is replaced by lots of great creatures: mostly giant insects and arachnids, but also a piranha man and a weird fungus-creature invented by the kindly, but probably nuts Dr. Harryhausen. None of the creatures are CGI; they’re all practical effects whether life-size models or stop-motion animation. So while the movie has the cheesy look of the Land of the Lost TV series, it also has the look that someone poured a lot of love into it.

Making it even more awesome is Maddy’s finding a mystic necklace that turns her into some kind of butt-kicking deity. The romantic plot between her and Josh never rises above the usual tropes, but the longer the movie runs, the less time it spends on that anyway. It’s a goofy film, but a lot of fun and way better than it sets out to be.

Rating: Four out of five teenage warrior goddesses.

Scientists hate cephalopods

By Robert Gibson Jones [Pulp Covers]

Tarzan 101 | Tarzan and the Lion Man

Celebrating Tarzan's 101st anniversary by walking through Scott Tracy Griffin's Tarzan: The Centennial Celebration.

Burroughs gained quite a bit of experience working with Hollywood during the production of the earliest Tarzan films, so he put that to good use in Tarzan and the Lion Man. The title character is a movie character played by marathon champion Stanley Obroski, who's come to Africa to shoot a movie with director Tom Orman, actress Naomi Madison, and Madison's stunt double Rhonda Terry.

The film expedition is based on the events surrounding the production of real-life safari film Trader Horn, an ill-fated shoot in which actors (including the female lead) and crew contracted malaria and two crewmen were killed by wild animals. In Lion Man, Tarzan is mostly a passive observer to the crew's plight until the two women are captured by English-speaking gorillas. He trails them to the gorillas' home and uncovers a Moreau-like scientist who's conducting genetic experiments on animals in order to prove Darwin right.

The novel ends with an epilogue in which Tarzan visits Hollywood and learns that - in its own way - it's just as vicious as the jungle. This last part was suggested to Burroughs by an editor at Modern Screen who wanted to publish a humorous piece about Tarzan and the film industry. Burroughs wrote it, but never submitted it to the magazine.

Thanks partly to Tarzan's being confused with actor Stanley Obroski in Lion Man, Griffin's supplemental chapter is on "Tarzan's Appearance." There's a thumbnail gallery of artists' interpretations (by J. Allen St. John, Frank Frazetta, Robert Abbett, Thomas Yeates, Boris Vallejo, N.C. Wyeth, George Wilson, Robert Stanley, and Neal Adams) and Griffin discusses how Burroughs intentionally left Tarzan's description vague. He also talks a little about Tarzan's costume and reveals that the origin of the over-the-shoulder strap in some depictions of Tarzan was from the early films from a time when men could be arrested for being topless at the beach.

Indestructible Man (1956)

Who's in it?: Lon Chaney, Jr.; Marian Carr (Kiss Me Deadly); Max Showalter (Ward Cleaver in the first episode of Leave It to Beaver, Sixteen Candles); Robert Shayne (Inspector Henderson from The Adventures of Superman)

What's it about?: A homicidal criminal (Chaney) is accidentally made invulnerable by a completely sane scientist (Shayne) and uses his new power to take revenge on his double-crossing team.

How is it?: Chaney is horrible in it. His drinking was so bad at this point in his career that he was unable to remember lines, so they made his character mute. And for some reason, the director chose to have a LOT of close-up, reaction shots to Chaney's glassy, twitching eyes. It's impossible to watch Chaney in it without getting really sad.

What makes the film bearable is Showalter as the good-natured cop in charge of closing the robbery case. There's still a bunch of money missing, so in addition to Chaney's revenge, finding the loot takes up most of the plot. Showalter reminds me of William H. Macy. He's so smiley and affable that he's easy to latch onto and root for.

I also like Carr as the burlesque dancer whom everyone thinks is Chaney's girlfriend. She's not though, and I love the simple, believable explanation she gives for how she got involved in the whole mess. There are a couple of backstories like that: how Showalter became a cop, for instance. Instead of coming up with dramatic motivations for everyone, the script is comfortable with, "Yeah, it seemed like the right thing to do after college." It's mundane and kind of stupid, but so is life. I dig it.

Rating: Bad.

The Corpse Vanishes (1942)

Who's in it?: Bela Lugosi; Luana Walters (Superman's mom in the Superman serial); Tris Coffin (King of the Rocket Men)

What's it about?: A girl reporter investigates the mysterious deaths and disappearing bodies of society brides.

How is it?: People come up to me and say, "Mike, I like Bela Lugosi in Dracula, but I what I really want to do is explore his crappy, B-movie horror films. Where should I start?"

Okay, no they don't. But if they did, I'd point them towards The Corpse Vanishes. It's full of bad actors and cornball sequences, but it's also got a some legitimately great moments and an excellent main character in Patricia Hunter (Walters) to take us through them.

The cheesy stuff is super cheesy, starting with the very first scene at a wedding in which the actor playing the groom has no idea where to look or what to do with himself during the ceremony. Hunter gets off to a shaky start too. She's callously exuberant in front of grieving family members because a dead bride means a huge story for her. I usually gloss past that kind of sloppy characterization in these movies, because I know that the filmmakers just couldn't be bothered to do something human and realistic. I think the first time I saw The Corpse Vanishes I just rolled my eyes and thought, "Oh, THAT'S what kind of movie this is."

What's surprising about The Corpse Vanishes though is that it doesn't stay that way. At least, Hunter doesn't. She turns out to be quite smart and resourceful. Lugosi's Dr. Lorenz is an incompetent body-snatcher and does a horrible job of covering his trail, but he's still smarter than the local authorities and has gotten away with several murders/corpse-thefts before the movie even begins. Hunter puts it all together though and chases down the story, seeing it as her way off the newspaper's society page where she's been stuck for a while.

Gender politics are all unspoken in the movie, but they're present. No one ever says why Hunter's been stuck covering weddings, but it's obvious that her editor doesn't have a lot of confidence in her, even when she comes up with reasonable theories about what's going on with the missing brides. He shoos her off on her story mostly to get rid of her and later seems to forget that he gave her permission to investigate. Because of how little he supports her, I almost forgive her for her early, inappropriate excitement over the opportunity to report a real story.

It leads her of course to Lorenz' creepy house full of misfits, hidden tunnels, and secret laboratories. Things get silly there - I especially love the part where a mute necrophiliac stalks Hunter while eating a turkey leg - but Hunter keeps it all grounded enough that it never goes off the rails. I also like her relationship with Dr. Foster (Coffin), a local physician helping Lorenz try to cure his wife. Foster is kind and appropriately concerned for Hunter's safety, but he never tries to swoop in and take over. She's the star and he supportively lets her be it. That's pretty refreshing for 1942.

Rating: Good.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Who's in it?: John Barrymore (Drew's grandpa)

What's it about?: Oh, you know.

How is it?: I judge adaptations of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on two things: the ability of the lead actor to play both characters, and the doctor's motivation for conducting his experiment in the first place. The first one's a challenge for obvious reasons and not every movie star pulls it off (cough! Spencer Tracy), so it's a great deal of fun to watch it done really well.

The motivation is more serious business though. I grew up loving the Victorian setting of the story and the idea of the transformation, but baffled about what in the world would make Jekyll want to conduct his experiment in the first place. Too many adaptations don't help with that. He does it for the same reason any other mad scientist conducts his experiments: because he can. But while that works for 98% of the mad scientists out there, it doesn't work for Jekyll, who's supposed to be a shining model of goodness. Why would this perfect example of moral uprightness knowingly transform himself into an evil monster? It's a difficult question that I'm not sure even Robert Louis Stevenson answers very convincingly, so it's a rare adaptation that pulls it off.

As far as the material transformation goes, the 1920 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the best. John Barrymore is second only to Fredric March's classic, extremely physical performance in the 1931 version. Barrymore's makeup is outstanding, but he also does a lot with his posture and other body language to become an entirely different character when he's Hyde.

Fortunately, Barrymore's version also does really well with the spiritual transformation too. It presents Jekyll not as a naturally upright man, but as someone who works hard to be good. That's more believable in the first place, as are the cracks we see in his facade when some of his friends coax him into situations that test his virtue. The desire to remain virtuous in spite of temptation is especially strong in a Victorian gentleman like Jekyll, so it's completely understandable that he wants to develop a scientific loophole to that dilemma. Transforming himself into Hyde allows him the release of being bad, while keeping Jekyll's conscience clean.

There are all sorts of arguments about how that's not really a loophole at all - first among them being that Jekyll takes the serum voluntarily - but that's sort of the whole point of the film. Jekyll doesn't get off that easy and once he lets his selfish side run loose, it becomes increasingly difficult to put him back in his cage. This version makes it more clear than most that Jekyll's trouble with Hyde is simply a representation of an experience that most people can relate to: the battle between selflessness and selfishness, and the danger of giving in to the latter. Fredric March's version is also good at explaining this, but it's more subtle than Barrymore's. There are advantages and disadvantages to that.

One of the disadvantages of the lack of subtlety in Barrymore's version is that the person most responsible for tempting Jekyll to selfishness is the father of his fiancée. Sir George Carew is known to all of his acquaintances as an especially worldly man and one character claims that Carew's worldliness has made him a great protector for his daughter. I'm not clear on how that logic tracks in the first place, but even if it's generally true, Carew doesn't seem to be acting in Millicent's interests by trying to convince her fiancé to screw around on her.

It's the result of the movie's wanting to be as explicit as possible about Jekyll's dilemma. Carew becomes the demon on Jekyll's shoulder, pushing him towards wanting to become Hyde. March's Jekyll doesn't need someone literally telling him how nice sin is. He's sees a woman's naked leg swinging hypnotically over the side of her bed and he knows without having it explained. And so does the audience. Barrymore's version doesn't trust us enough to get it without having Carew outline it. Still, I'm glad to have the 1920 Jekyll and Hyde spell everything out really clearly, because it ultimately helps me better understand March's more sophisticated version.

Rating: Good.

King of the Zombies (1941)

Who's in it?: Dick Purcell (Captain America serial); Mantan Moreland (lots of Charlie Chan movies); Henry Victor (Freaks); some other folks.

What's it about?: A government agent crashes on a Caribbean island and discovers a mansion full of zombies and Nazis.

How is it?: Originally designed as a vehicle for Bela Lugosi, King of the Zombies feels like the many low-budget horror movies he made in the '30s and '40s. Unfortunately, neither Lugosi nor Peter Lorre (the producer's back-up plan) was available, so the role of Dr. Miklos Sangre went to character actor Henry Victor. He does a good job, but he's nowhere near as memorable as the first two choices.

Unlike the other two zombie movies in this series (White Zombie and Revolt of the Zombies), Sangre doesn't use his power for anything as pathetic as forcing women to be with the creepy dudes in love with them. It's 1941 and Sangre is all about the world-domination. King of the Zombies never comes out and says it, but Sangre's obviously a Nazi agent. He's kidnapped a U.S. admiral and it's the officer's disappearance that brings agent Bill Summers (John Archer) to the Caribbean with a pilot (Captain America himself, Dick Purcell) and - oddly - a valet (Moreland). Sangre's plan is to transfer the admiral's consciousness to a zombie, who will then give Sangre the information that the admiral refuses to share. It's a creative way of using the zombie concept (since they're basically empty, soulless husks) and I love the spy angle.

The sets are also really cool and there are plenty of secret passages and spooky graveyards for the heroes to explore.

The movie's problem is Moreland's character, Jeff Jackson. It's not that he's not funny. Moreland was a talented comedian and one of the few black actors to have a successful career in mainstream Hollywood in his day. His schtick is dated though and can be difficult to enjoy depending on how sensitive you are. He's wide-eyed and scared all the time in a really slapsticky way, and most of his jokes are about the color of his skin.

He also gets kind of thrown under the bus by Summers and Mac the pilot once they're in Sangre's mansion. Early in the film, the two men treat him sort of like a mascot, but it's kind of deserved since he insists on acting like one. He doesn't really deserve his treatment at the mansion though. Sangre insists that Jeff sleep with the other servants so that they don't get ideas about how servants and masters should relate to each other. Summers agrees to it over Jeff's objections. He insists he's just trying to be a good guest, but he's pretty callous about it. It's disturbing to see Jeff have no say while the other two men discuss him.

To Summers and Mac's credit though, once Jeff sneaks back with tales of zombies in the house, they listen to him. They're skeptical, but compassionate enough to let him stay with them the rest of the night. Not that any of them get to spend much more time in the room. This is a zombie spy movie after all. Zombies to kill, Nazis to catch, and all that. There's even a girl to kiss (Sangre's niece, played by Joan Woodbury).

Rating: Okay.

The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962)

Who's in it?: No one you know.

What's it about?: A douchebag scientist kills his girlfriend in a car crash and keeps her head alive while he searches strip clubs and beauty pageants for a replacement body.

How is it?: Oh so campy. Girlfriend Jan is known as Jan in the Pan by devotees, so that tells you everything you need to know about the movie's attraction. Jan resents her boyfriend for keeping her alive and begins to plot with another of his experiments: a hidden monster locked away in a closet. Their relationship is flaky and delightful. Best part of the movie.

Certainly better than the scientist's search. I'd call him a mad scientist - and he technically is - but Herb Evers plays him totally straight. He doesn't seem insane, just evil. How he's fooled Jan however long they've been together is a mystery, but as soon as he gets her hooked up to his life-support equipment, he's off to get her a body. And not just any body, either.

As long as Jan's getting a new bod, it might as well be a stripper's, right? Or a beauty contestant's. Or a model's. He has to try a few different plans because it's impossible to get these women alone. Mostly that's due to his being such a dreamy hunk that other women keep coming around, at which point he has to ditch them all and start over.

I wish the selfish scientist was the only thing I have to complain about with this movie, but it's not. There are mannish strippers, a plastic surgeon who practices a little neurosurgery on the side, and the total rip-off that that one-eyed brain on the poster isn't even in the movie. But Jan in the Pan and the Monster in the Closet almost make up for all that.

Rating: Okay.

The Monster Maker (1944)

Who's in it?: J. Carrol Naish (House of Frankenstein, Batman serial); Glenn Strange (House of Frankenstein, The Mad Monster); Ray Corrigan (Undersea Kingdom); Ace the Wonder Dog (Phantom serial)

What's it about?: A mad scientist poseur uses a serum to deform the father of the girl he's stalking.

How is it?: It's pretty great for a couple of reasons. First is the twist on the mad scientist convention. Naish plays a madman, but he's actually - Maniac-like - impersonating a scientist that he killed. The backstory is pretty cool. Naish's wife left him for a famous scientist who was pursuing the cure to a rare, deforming disease, so Naish injected them both with a serum that gave them the disease and killed them. He's been living the high life in the scientist's place when he meets a girl who resembles his dead wife. Unfortunately, she and her father are a little creeped out by Naish's unwanted, relentless attention, so Naish uses the serum to force Dad to help convince his daughter.

The other thing I love about the movie is all the familiar faces. Naish played Karloff's hunchbacked partner in House of Frankenstein and was also the bad guy in the first Batman serial. Naish is a creepy-looking guy with a strange, almost Peter Lorre-like voice, so he plays a great villain.

Glenn Strange gets another turn out of his Frankenstein make-up and doesn't even have to pretend to be a dumb bohunk. He plays Naish's giant henchman, Steve. If I seem overly impressed by Strange's being out of make-up, it's because I'm not enough of a Gunsmoke fan to have remembered that he was a regular on that show for like 13 years. Incidentally, tomorrow night's movie also has a Gunsmoke connection, but I'll leave that for then.

For absolutely no other reason than because it's awesome, Naish's character also has a killer gorilla. I was pleased to learn that it's played by Ray "Crash" Corrigan, star of Undersea Kingdom, a goofy serial about some adventurers who get trapped in Atlantis for 12 episodes. And speaking of serials, Ace the Wonder Dog (who played Devil in the Phantom serial) is Naish's pet and the gorilla's nemesis.

Rating: Good.

The Ape (1940)

Who's in it?: Boris Karloff

What's it about?: A well-meaning mad scientist uses the escape of a circus gorilla to cover up the murders the scientist commits to further his research.

How is it?: Karloff is a different kind of mad scientist, because he really does have good intentions. He's trying to help a young girl who suffers from the same paralyzing disease that killed his daughter. To do that though, he needs spinal fluid from recently deceased bodies. The movie does a nice job of showing the progression of Karloff's descent into madness. His first victim actually is killed by the escaped gorilla, but as Karloff needs more fluid, he gets more involved. It's heartbreaking to watch him, especially because the film constantly dangles hope in front of him.

As sad as it is though, it's also got its fun moments. The gorilla costume is awesome and there's also a good police procedural as the local sheriff tracks the ape and tries to stop the murders.

Rating: Good.

The Vampire Bat (1933)

Who's in it?: Lionel Atwill (Mark of the Vampire, Captain Blood, Son of Frankenstein); Fay Wray (King Kong); Melvyn Douglas (Hud); Dwight Frye (Dracula)

What's it about?: Mysterious deaths lead the inhabitants of a small village to suspect a vampire is in their midst.

How is it?: Early in Bela Lugosi's Dracula, there's some doubt about whether a vampire is actually responsible for all the deaths that are occurring. Van Helsing says so, but not everyone is convinced. It's an interesting situation that gets resolved more quickly than I want, so I'm glad that it's the entire focus of The Vampire Bat. Karl Brettschneider (Douglas) is the inspector in charge of solving the murders and he insists that vampires don't exist. The rest of the town disagrees though and suspects the mentally disabled Herman (Frye) who enjoys playing with bats and has a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't deviate from the standard tropes of its genre, so anyone familiar with B-movie horror featuring murders and a beloved local scientist (Atwill) will know what's going on before the opening credits are done. Even so, there are a couple of surprising twists that keep the movie from being too predictable. Also, Maude Eburne livens the mood as the humorously hypochondriacal aunt of the scientist's assistant (Wray).

Rating: Good.

Metropolis (1927)

Who's in it?: Nobody you know; unless you know them from this.

What's it about?: Class warfare in a dystopian future.

How is it?:  Metropolis doesn't seem like a natural pick for a box set of horror movies, but the more I think about it, the more appropriate it is. There's a mad scientist, but that doesn't make it a horror movie. His creations are more into encouraging social rebellion than murdering villagers. There's not even an iconic horror actor to justify the movie's inclusion.

It is however a German Expressionist film like horror classics Nosferatu, The Golem, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. That by itself doesn't make it a horror film, except that the imagery of Metropolis is as stylishly unsettling as any of those films. It's meant to frighten us; just not for thrills. It wants to scare us into action, or at least into thinking a certain way.

It gets praised a lot for good reason. It's a lavish spectacle that still looks amazing 85 years later. The special effects hold up, the action is beautifully choreographed, and the world-building is stunning and believable. The world of Metropolis feels like a real place, though not one you'd want to live in unless you were ridiculously rich.

The theme of rich bastards vs. poor workers is more timely than ever, but it's the handling of that theme where the movie falls short. It's ridiculously unsubtle and you're told exactly how you're supposed to feel every step of the way. If it's not through imagery, it's through speeches.

But even though the execution is simplistic, the message isn't. Metropolis isn't a Marxist propoganda film about the Man keeping the workers down. It's about the classes learning to co-exist, not just peacefully, but symbiotically. That's a powerful statement and I have to like the movie for making it in such a visually impressive - if not exactly elegant - way.

Rating: Good.

Maniac (1934)

Who's in it?: No one you know.

What's it about?: A former vaudeville actor kills and murders the mad scientist he's been apprenticing for; then carries on the the crazy man's legacy much too well.

How is it?: Wow. This thing, you guys. It's part mad scientist flick, part exploitation film, part homage to Edgar Allen Poe, all masquerading as sort of an educational film on psychoses. The plot about the actor and his boss is cut with intertitle cards containing clinical-sounding quotes from a journal about the criminally insane. As the actor descends deeper into madness, there are truly disturbing scenes of violence against women and animals. There are also relatively harmless, but no less ridiculous scenes of women standing around in their underwear and posing while reciting exposition. The movie is a hot mess.

The only positive thing I'll say about it is that it's kind of fun to play Spot the Poe Reference. I've no idea why the writer gets dragged into it, but part of the movie is an adaptation of "The Black Cat" and there's an explicit reference to "Murders in the Rue Morgue" at one point. Poe deserves better.

Rating: Turkey

The Mad Monster (1942)

Who's in it?: George Zucco (Dead Men Walk); Glenn Strange (House of Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein)

What's it about?: A mad scientist (Zucco) creates a werewolf (Strange) to take revenge on the scientific community that mocked and ridiculed him. They mocked and ridiculed the scientist, that is; not the werewolf.

How is it?: It's worth watching if only to see Glenn Strange out of his Frankenstein make-up. For those who don't recognize Strange's name, he played the Frankenstein Monster for Universal after a couple of failed attempts with Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi. In fact, if you count Abbott and Costello (which you totally should because it rules), Strange played the Universal Frankenstein Monster as much as Karloff himself; the other two times being in House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. Thanks to his ability to disappear into the role, he's better at it than anyone but Karloff, too. The Mad Monster shows just how enormous a guy Strange was and it's a joy to see him play the big, dumb bohunk that evil Zucco turns into a werewolf.

It's kind of cool that Zucco initially develops the werewolf serum in order to create an army of werewolf super-soldiers for WWII. I'd like a Captain America crossover, please. Unfortunately, those plans get sidetracked for the revenge scheme, but that's well done too, at least at first. There's a really cool scene early on where Zucco talks to the ghostly figures of his former colleagues in the science community. It's clear that the figures are all in Zucco's imagination and his arguing with them makes it obvious just how crazy he is.

It's too bad that the movie drags towards the end and that Zucco gets his comeuppance in a totally random way that has nothing to do with any action of any character in the movie, but the overalls-wearing werewolf makes up for that.

Rating: Good.

Atom Age Vampire (1960)

Who's in it?: Alberto Lupo (The Agony and the Ecstasy); Susanne Loret (The Minotaur)

What's it about?: A stripper (Loret) is disfigured in a car accident and approached by a scientist (Lupo) who promises to restore her looks. Unfortunately, his feelings for her may be driving him...mad!

How is it?: The "vampire" in the title is purely metaphorical, and so (along with the bat on the poster), completely misleading. There's a reference in the dialogue to the monster's being like a vampire, but only in the sense that he's stealing some kind of precious life-force from people. Plotwise, the movie has a lot more in common with The Corpse Vanishes (a movie we'll get to later) than Dracula: the mad professor has to kill women to keep his beautiful love-interest looking flawless.

It was originally an Italian-language movie, so there's some dubbing to get past, but I do like Loret's character. She's vain enough to be miserable when her face is horribly scarred, but human enough to be horrified by the professor and his solution for healing her. It's an interesting conflict.

The monster is pretty gratuitous though. The professor uses radiation (it's the Atom Age!) to intentionally transform himself so that he can avoid being recognized on his killing sprees. That seems like a pretty extreme solution, but he is mad, I guess, so I shouldn't judge.

Rating: Okay.

Western Wednesday: Deadlands

The first of several Deadlands one-shot comics hits shops today. Thanks to its creative mixture of Westerns and Horror (resulting in awesome monsters like man-eating tumbleweeds and ghostly hangmen) as well as Steampunk, Deadlands was one one of my Top Five role-playing games back when I used to play. One of my criteria for an excellent RPG was an extremely developed world to play in and Deadlands had that in spades with its wide swaths of Indian-controlled territory, outlaw settlements (based on real, Western towns), and a maze of pirate-filled waterways where California used to be. There's a ton of story potential there for some truly awesome comics.

Ron Marz is editing the series of one-shots and has hired creators like Steve Ellis, Jimmy Palmiotti, Justin Gray, Bart Sears, Steve Niles, and Francesco Francavilla to contribute. I lamented on Robot 6 that I wished it was an actual series with characters I could get to know instead of a series of one-shots, but C Edward Sellner, Creative Director for the studio that's producing the book assured me that they're "just warming up with these first one-shots, to introduce the world and the property to the comics fans. We have plans a’plenty for more Deadlands goodness, including more traditional mini-series and if sales warrant, even a monthly dose with an ongoing character you’ll meet in these first one shots." Sounds good to me.

According to the press release: "The first book out of the gate is Deadlands: The Devil's Six Gun by the Harvey award-winning team of David Gallaher and Steve Ellis. In classic Faustian tradition, a weapons maker comes to America to pursue the American dream in the former colonies. Instead, he becomes immersed in plots and manipulations to gain unearthly power through the supernatural Ghost Rock. His goal? To make a gun that can kill anything, including the powerful Hellstromme! Its a journey that will cost him everything he loves, including his soul!

"Deadlands (APR110410), the first 32 page full color one shot in this series of weird westerns, will be available in stores June 15, 2011 for $2.99."

Read My Stuff: Panels for Primates

For those who aren't familiar with it, Panels for Primates is a charity anthology webcomic on the act-i-vate site that's meant to raise money for the Primate Rescue Center in Kentucky. It's entirely free to read, but if the ape and monkey stories move or entertain you at all, you're invited - but not obligated - to contribute.

I'm a huge fan of these animals, so I was thrilled when editor Troy Wilson invited me to contribute a short, two-page story. And even more thrilled when he told me I'd be working with the awesome Simon Roy. Between the two of us, we packed a ton of action into two pages including giant cephalopods, tiki-men, a sinister elephant, a mad tortoise, slime-monsters, werewolves, mummies, and I'm self-indulgent enough to have thrown in giant monsters, giant robots, and yes, gorillas riding dinosaurs. It also features that most famous of Kentucky primates, Daniel Baboon. Please go check it out.

Pass the Comics: Trespasser in Time

This isn't even the weirdest thing that happens in this story. [The Comic Book Catacombs]

Elsewhere... Mad scientists pose as vampires

Flick Attack!



Flick Attack is a new blog by the folks behind Bookgasm, the awesome book review blog. They can explain what Flick Attack's about much better than I can:

We’ll have no news. No scoops. No rumors. No set reports. Just one kick-ass review a day, Monday through Friday, with the occasional article on Saturday to make your weekend that much awesomer.

Yep, that’s right: Every day you get one review, so take it or leave it. While everyone else pees their pants over the latest multiplex releases, we’re gonna dig through our archives and toss out something that’s not playing a theater near you. Maybe you’ve heard of it; maybe you haven’t; maybe it’s easy to find; maybe it’s not — doesn’t matter. You will read it, and you will like it.

So if you like discovering cinematic trash-terpieces, you’ve come to the right place. We’ve got horror, sci-fi, action, kung fu, comedy and sex. But no drama. If it’s tears you want, we’ll be happy to kick you in the shin.

And they're letting me play with them. My first review - for the Bela Lugosi masterpiece (and possible origin of vampires' saying "Bleh!") My Son the Vampire - went up last Monday.

Food or Comics?



This week's comics on a budget column included Beasts of Burden/Hellboy and Sky Pirates of Valendor amongst other things.

Boneyard



Finally, this week's Gorillas Riding Dinosaurs was a look at Richard Moore's Boneyard.

Art Show: Meddling Kids

Bad Night for Graverobbing



By Pat Lewis.

Bear and Witch



By Andrea Tsurumi.

The Fly



By Francesco Francavilla.

Scooby and the Gang



By Andry Rajoelina. Have any of you guys seen the new Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated show? It's the best Scooby Doo show since Scooby Doo, Where Are You? and The New Scooby Doo Movies and there are times when I think it may be better than either of those. [Art Jumble]