Fangs for the Memories, Basil Gogos.

Filmland has just lost one of its most famous monsters…

Legendary artist Basil Gogos was, without a doubt, one of the finest painters known to horror. His jaw-dropping, mind-melting portraits of cinema’s greatest fiends graced the covers of many, many issues of Famous Monsters of Filmland. Starting with an eerie portrait of Vincent Price for Famous Monsters #9, Gogos created almost 50 wondrously macabre works for the publication. Gogos often bathed his monstrous subjects with brilliant colors from multiple light sources, highlighting their fearsome features with expressionistic radiance. His subjects included The Phantom of the Opera, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, King Kong, Godzilla, Gill-man, Mr. Sardonicus, Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Vincent Price, and many other beloved fright icons. Mr. Gogos also brought his distinctive flair to CD covers for rock acts Rob Zombie, The Misfits and Electric Frankenstein.

Farewell, Basil Gogos. Your paintings brought out the beauty in the beast and inspired generations of monster lovers. Thank you for bringing color to black-and-white monsters. ūüôā

]

#MonsterMovieMonday: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Hyde-y Ho, Ho-rror Ho-mies!
Just another Monster Monday here at Kinky Ho-rror, so who’s up for a game of Hyde-and-Shriek…? ūüėČ
Today’s featured creature feature is 1920’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,¬†starring John Barrymore as the two-faced fiend. It is one of the earliest (but not THE earliest) adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s cl-Ass-sick terror tale of Good and Evil.¬†For our blood money, the 1931 version is BY FAR the best take on the story. Howl-ever, we think this film doesn’t get enough of the ol’ mad love.
For starters, John Barrymore does a sensational job as the tit-ular fiend(s). His first transformation is done completely without makeup, so it’s just Barrymore contorting his features and violently jerking about, turning himself into a monster through sheer body language… and dam if it ain’t creepy as all heck! When he does get all decked out in fright gear, Barrymore is a thing from Hell!
This gaslight Gothic’s also gotta a lot of dread and menace, with atmos-fear as thick as a London fog. For something creeping up on a hundred years, it’s still got the fright stuff, baby! Our favorite bit is a nightmare sequence with a spider creature that has to be seen to be feared! In silent films, no one can hear you scream!

Nowhere to Hyde… check out the film below!

#SupernaturalSaturday Movie Review: The Mummy (2017)

Ass-uming you’ve never seen it, 1932’s The Mummy may be a tad unexpected. For a film that inspired an entire sub-genre of mummy monster movies, it bares very little resemblance to subsequent films. There aren’t any real action set pieces and the story is a strangely poetic fantasy of a love that transcended the ages. The tit-ular mummy (played by the beyond great Boris Karloff) is only bandaged for a short time at the beginning, so there’s very little shambling. It’s a deliberately paced film with gloomy, eXXXpressionistic atmosphere. After over 80 years of other mummies in its wake, the film still feels unlike any other film to feature a bandaged ghoul. One such film that it has very little in common with is 2017’s The Mummy.

Universal actually has a history of rebooting this particular monster. While commonly referred to as “sequels,” the truth is that the Mummy films of the 1940s were hardly a continuation of the Karloff original, despite the first installment’s (The Mummy’s Hand) use of sets and footage from it. Imhotep of the original was replaced with Kharis, the shambling mummy most audiences vaguely recall. The Kharis films moved at a faster pace, had more action, and more comedy. They were all a great deal of fun, but none of them came close to the beautifully eerie original. When Universal took another crack at the sarcophagus with 1999’s The Mummy, they clearly found more inspiration in Kharis than Imhotep, although they did borrow the latter’s name.
With this new Mummy,¬†it seems that the filmmakers drew from the 1999 film more than any of the other previous films. There’s hardly an ounce of Karloff left in it. In essence, it’s the reboot of the reboot of a film made 85 years prior. With that in mind, it’s pretty easy to divorce it from the first film. And as one in a long line of monster movies, It’s pretty enjoyable. If viewed as just a bit of fun monster nonsense, it’s a good deal of¬†fun. This film is precisely the sort of film you should be watching with an eXXXtra large soda in one hand and a plastic tray of nachos (and/or Twizzlers and Reeses’s Cups :)) in the other.
I’m also pleased to report that, for the most part, the film is a ho-rror film. That is to say that there’s a good deal of zombie-ish mummies, creepy critters, terrible curses, shocks, thrills, and soul-sucking. I doubt there’s anything that’ll give¬†you lasting nightmares, but it’s always fun to see some theme park-y scares on the big screen. The action and spook-scares compliment each other nicely and make for a groovy night at the movies. While I would’ve preferred something a little more Gothic, what we have pretty entertaining.
The film stars Tom Cruise as a scrappy¬†treasure hunter (very similar to Brendan Fraser’s Rick O’Connell) and Sofia Boutella as the tit-ular Mummy. Mr. Cruise seems like he’s having a blast and gives charm to a somewhat jerky character. Ms. Boutella is striking and fairly menacing as the Mummy, but she really isn’t given much too do. This version of the monster is devoid of any of the tragedy of the role once had. As much as I enjoy Mr. Cruise (and trust me, I do!! :)), I do wish they had focus more on the Mummy as a character. Instead, she seems like secondary figure in what should be her film. Also in the film is Russell Crowe in the role(s) of Dr. Jekyll ¬†and… you know who. He’s fun in the film, but it seems like they plan on eXXXploring that character(s) in a potential sequel.

The Mummy is intended to be the first in a series of new Universal Monster Movies and I do ho-pe it does well enough for sequels. By no means is this a great film, but it’s a fun popcorn flick. The Universal Monsters are among my dearest ho-mies, so any eXXXcuse to bring them back is fine by me. Ho-pefully, the sequels will embrace the Gothic nature of the original films and bring back some of the cl-ass-ical horror that made them immortal. For now, The Mummy is monstrous enough for me. To a new world of Gods and Monsters.

Scary Shorties: Hyde and Hare (1955)

In almost any given situation, Bugs Bunny is just about the smartest smartass in the room. He’s Groucho Marx in a world of Margaret Dumonts. Bugs would almost always beat the odds, no matter how the stacked the deck was. That Looney Toon was the underdog you just knew was going to come up on top. Yet despite his remarkable winning streak, there’s one ghoul he just couldn’t lick…
In 1955’s Hyde and Hare, Bugs Bunny was pitted against the most two-faced of all classic monsters… Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In a rather unusual situation for the hilarious hare, Bugs is the victim here and remains so. Of all the monsters and madmen he’s encountered, Hyde was one he couldn’t do away with gags and pranks. There are no pies in the face or dynamite explosions… only a rabbit on the run from fiend. In a way, this makes this the closest thing to a true Looney Tunes horror film. Most of the action is Bugs trying to elude the mad monster. But as Bugs quickly discovers, there is nowhere to run and nowhere to Hyde…

The ending of this short is particularly fascinating. After having drank all of Dr. Jekyll’s infamous formula, Bugs turns into a hideously green monster. However, unlike the good doctor, Bugs Bunny’s personality remains intact! Dr. Jekyll has a hidden side and an inner evil that’s brought out by the potion.. but Bugs only changes physically. Bugs Bunny is, and always has been, a monster!
For a game of Hyde and Shriek, check out the cartoon below: