Your source for retro horror movie and book reviews

Posts tagged “1944

Universal Monsters in Review: The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944)

invisiblemansreven1

Let me start by saying  that I am a fan of the Invisible Man. The original book by H.G. Wells is a work of utter brilliance, and the original 1933 film, The Invisible Man, starring Claude Rains, is a wonderful screen adaptation and true to the “mad scientist” theme. Its a difficult story to pull off in a movie. The effects have to be decent and the actors have to be good enough for everything not to come off feeling comical. The original with Claude Rains as the invisible man gave us the building blocks of what to expect in later invisible man movies, a scientist driven mad by his own formula and desire for recognition in his field of study. The Invisible Woman has yet to make it on Universal Monsters in Review, so we’ll leave that one out for now, but the rest, The Invisible Man Returns, the Invisible Agent, and Abbot and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, while trying to do things different, end up coming off strangely out of sync. Of these, at least The Invisible Agent was cinematic and entertaining, despite its obvious propagandic agenda. The Invisible Man Returns was kinda of a bore with too many complicated themes going on, and A&C Meet The Invisible Man was entirely way too long. The Invisible Man’s Revenge seemed…well, different then the rest. The Invisible Man is no longer the protagonist, which is fine because he is the monster, right? But with the story of some maniac wanting to get back what’s owed to him (money), blackmailing and murder and what not to achieve his goals, well…I didn’t really see the need for the invisible man aspect of the film. This easily could have been a straightforward noir mystery without the need of the “mad science” of invisibility, in fact, I’d be as bold to say the entire invisible man part was tacked on and not the central theme, as it should have been. We don’t even get “the invisible man” until the second act. And the encounter with the “mad scientist” was utterly coincidental. The one saving grace for me (though the movie was entertaining regardless of non-monsterism) was John Carradine as Doctor Peter Drury and Leon Errol who played bumbling drunk Herbert Higgins. Leon stole the show, in my opinion, and was truly a pleasure watching preform. Okay…as it seems, I’ve again gone on waaay too much. Lets see what our estimated guest author had to say about The Invisible Man’s Revenge.

 

The Invisible Man’s Revenge

By: Jeffery X. Martin

“The Invisible Man’s Revenge” is the fifth film in the series, and how did that happen? As far as monsters go, the Invisible Man isn’t that impressive. You can’t see him. He’s not even malformed or hideous to look at when he’s visible. Imagine people paying money to go see nothing and being frightened by it.
Historically, this counts as a horror film. It’s not. It’s a pot-boiler, a melodrama with sparse horror elements. A man returns to London only to learn he’s been bilked out of a fortune in diamonds by people he considered friends. He vows revenge, which comes when he meets a mad scientist. Actually, he’s quite friendly, as far as mad scientists go. He even has his hair brushed.
invis2
The scientist has created an invisibility formula. It alters the skin pigmentation, changing the way light refracts. Think of the Predator, only thin and with a funny mustache.
Once the good doctor injects our lead with the serum, he goes after his former friends with a see-through vengeance.
The special effects are neat, in the same way that card tricks are neat. You’re not quite sure how they did them, but you’ve got a pretty good idea. There are lots of floating objects and hard-working actors reacting to something attached to fishing line. The scenes where the Invisible Man unwraps the bandages from his head to reveal nothing are still impressive, even if he’s less the Invisible Man and more the Walking Blank Chromakey Weather Map. One expects to see a high-pressure front forming where his forehead should be.
invis3
Jon Hall as the unseeable male is passable. It seems like the filmmakers believed they had the next big star on their hands, and he received top billing. And while stalwart B-movie performers infest this movie like bedbugs in a Mississippi motel room, the real standout is John Carradine as the crazed yet urbane Dr. Drury. He gives this programmer an air of elegance it would have otherwise lacked.
invis5
The main problem with “The Invisible Man’s Revenge” is, when you think about it, there was no need for him to be invisible for him to carry out his evil plan. He could have achieved his ends simply through threats of violence. A man will sign almost any self-incriminating piece of paper when he’s staring down the barrel of a .38. It feels like they took a script that was floating around the studio and adapted it to the Invisible Man series. This practice still continues in Hollywood, which you know if you’ve ever watched a “Die Hard” sequel.
invis4
Set in London, the main characters all sport American accents. The ending feels tacked on, with a short speech at the end to remind the audience of just how evil it is to be evil. I imagine if this movie had been made pre-Code, it would have been far more enjoyable.
As it stands, this is a decent little feature, light as a cloud. You’ll forget you saw it soon after, but again, you’re five movies into the franchise. Anything is bound to get a bit long in the tooth after that long. “The Invisible Man’s Revenge” is for completists only, and even those who insist on seeing them all are better off watching “Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man” first.
jeffxmartin
Please call me X. Everyone does. When I was a kid, fourth grade, to be exact, I wrote a horror story for a class assignment. It was so good, they called my mother in to the office for a conference on a day when school was closed for students. The fourth grade teachers and the school principal wanted to have me evaluated by a psychologist. The school staff couldn’t figure out why I would want to write a story that was violent or had frightening images. Why wasn’t it football, puppies and rainbows?I wasn’t that kind of kid. My mother knew that. And she promptly told those teachers, the principal (and that horrible school secretary, the one who looked like a Raggedy Ann doll, possessed by Pazuzu) and anyone else within earshot to go f**k themselves. I still write scary stories. It’s my job. It’s what I do. It’s what I’ve always done.
You can keep in touch with X on his prolific podcast Kiss the Goat and Screen Kings. You can find his work, including his newly minted novel Hunting Witches, on the altar of Amazon by following the link provided here.

Did you enjoy what you read here? Be sure to subscribe to our SPAM FREE newsletter. Be the first to get new book releases, sales, giveaways, future reviews and new series’, guest posts, and of course…a FREE eBook (click below).

freebookposter

Advertisements

Universal Monsters in Review: The Mummy’s Curse (1944)

mummyscurse1

And thus we have arrived. Sadly, I must say, The Mummy’s Curse will be the last of the Mummy movies to be reviewed here on this series. It is very sad. The mummy character has been one of my favorites during Universal Monsters in Review, starting of course with Boris Karloff as the original Mum in The Mummy (1932). The Mummy’s Curse (1944) is certainly not the last we’ll see of the cursed Egyptian priest. Lest we not forget, there was a resurgence of classic monsters back in the 1960s and 70s with those darling UK Hammer productions staring, typically, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Marvelous films those were. On today’s agenda, of course, we look back to the last time Lon Chaney will be forced through hours of prosthetic makeup and wardrobe. As with The Mummy’s Ghost, also released in 1944, the performances were kicked up a notch, as was the storytelling. The Mummy’s Curse was set upon a simple and easy to follow trajectory. No lazy appearances this time around, the mummy is actually unearthed from the swamp in which he fled at the end of The Mummy’s Ghost. Along of course with damsel the stereotypical damsel in distress Amina Mansouri, played by the beautiful Ramsay Ames in the last film, now replaced by Virginia Christine, in which he took with him into a watery grave. If you remember, at the end of The Mummy’s Ghost, Amina was kidnapped by the mummy and used to resurrect the soul of Princess Ananka, or she was a reincarnation of her, its hard to say exactly. Here we find the same tragedy, Amina is not quite herself, nor is she quite Ananka either. And for this, I applaud The Mummy’s Curse, for the curse is not really so much about the mummy Kharis, but rather, about Amina Mansouri and Princess Ananka, an innocent bystander who is thrust into this nightmarish world, and with Ananka, a princess who died naturally. There are some other elements with The Mummy’s Curse that I have not seen, or have seen rarely, in other Universal films during this era. What I’m referring to is Napoleon Simpson playing the role of Goobie (ugh), a very stereotypical “massa” and “sho’ ’nuff” style African American. His character was not comedic, nor was he useful in carrying the plot. Only in so much as screaming and running around crying for help. But again, we have to remember the era in which this film was made. Segregation was still the law, aka Jim Crow. And women could not vote. Homosexuality was also considered a crime. It doesnt make it right, but we also cannot expect to take a 1940s American film and judge it by modern standards. When looking at a historic film, one must remain (as much as possible) objective. Okay…I’ve seemed to ramble on quite a bit here. Let us venture forth and see what our esteemed guest has to say regarding The Mummy’s Curse.

 

The Mummy’s Curse (1944)

By Pembroke Sinclair

 

I’ve been struggling with where to start this review.  It’s not that the movie was terrible, but it wasn’t exactly stellar, either.  This film was pretty short, coming in at 1 hour long.  Not a whole heck of a lot happened in that time, except that the mummy rose from the dead, killed a few people, then was defeated.  There wasn’t much time for characters to be fleshed out, so I didn’t really feel for any of them.

Racial stereotypes ran rampant throughout the film, although my first impression was that I was impressed that several different cultures were portrayed.  The film takes place in the swamps of Louisiana.  Of course, the white man has come in and is planning to drain it for irrigation purposes, and when the workers refuse to work because of rumors about the mummy, he takes on an I-know-best attitude to get them to finish.  As you can imagine, this leads to death and murder.

mummyscurse2

From a surficial viewing of this film, it wasn’t anything special.  There weren’t any jump scares, and the storyline actually confused me just a bit.  Kharis (the mummy) was punished in his previous life (thousands of years ago in Egypt) because he was trying to raise his love (Princess Anaka) from the dead.  I couldn’t really follow the story of his punishment, but some slaves were killed and he was buried alive and forced to be the guardian of the princess’s tomb.

There was something about special leaves that could bring the dead back to life, and that was what Kharis stole from the gods to bring Anaka back.  After he was caught, they buried him with those leaves—and I’m not really sure why.  I mean, if they have that power, why make it readily available to someone who might have inclinations to raise the dead?  But when does horror always make sense?

Anyway, this story takes place 25 years after Kharis sunk in some quicksand (I’m assuming this happens in a previous movie, but I didn’t see it, so I don’t know).  Kharis is raised from the dead from some priests so that he can find his princess, who also happens to be buried somewhere in the swamp.  (She’s unearthed later by a bulldozer.)

So, in addition to the workers who are trying to drain the swamps, there are also archaeologists who are looking for the sarcophagi so that they can go to a museum.  But one of these scientists (Ragheb) is looking for them so he can send them back to Egypt so that the dead can rest in peace.  He’s the one who raises Kharis so that he can find Anaka.  It sounds noble, for sure, but t becomes violent because Ragheb tells Kharis that he can kill whoever gets in his way while looking for Anaka.  And, as you can imagine, people do, so they get strangled.

mummyscurse3

I became confused about a couple things.  1) Why did Princess Anaka retain her beauty after bathing in the river?  Why didn’t she looked like hammered hell like Kharis?  2) If she was Kharis’s true love, why was she so afraid of him?  There were indications that she was looking for him also—she would fall into a trance and repeat his name over and over—but when he showed up, she would freak out and run.  3) The love story between Dr. Ilzor Zandaab and Betty felt tacked on.  I get that it needed to be there as a juxtaposition between Kharis and Anaka, but it needed to be developed.

mummyscurse5

This also might play into the point about the film, however.  The title is The Mummy’s Curse, and he was punished because he was trying to reunite with his true love.  In this film, he can’t resurrect himself, and humans have to intervene by giving him his potion of leaves.  In a sense, he becomes a pawn to be used by whoever resurrects him.  And perhaps Anaka not recognizing him and running away in fear is also part of his curse.  He’s forever trying to possess something he can’t have.

Sure, he kills and is a walking corpse, but is he really that bad?  Would he kill if he wasn’t instructed to?  Is he truly the monster in the film or is it the others around him?

mummyscurse4

There were a few things that surprised me: the women in the film had some stereotypical roles (fainting and needing to be rescued), but they also had some powerful roles.  For example, Betty on multiple occasions talks back to her uncle and lets him know how she feels about things.  Anaka is shown using a microscope and expresses her knowledge about ancient Egyptian culture—mainly because she had lived through it, but she doesn’t remember that at the time.

While this film isn’t something I’d watch again for pure entertainment, I believe that there are some deeper meanings hidden within the text.  Like all horror films, there is social commentary buried beneath the surface, and I’d watch it again to find these commentaries and figure out what they are saying.

Jessica Robinson 2 BW

Pembroke Sinclair is a literary jack of all trades, playing her hand at multiple genres. She has written an eclectic mix of fiction ranging from horror to sci-fi and even some westerns. Born in Rock Springs, Wyoming–the home of 56 nationalities–it is no wonder Pembroke ended up so creatively diverse. Her fascination with the notions of good and evil, demons and angels, and how the lines blur have inspired her writing. Pembroke lives in Laramie, Wyoming, with her husband, two spirited boys, a black lab named Ryder, and a rescue kitty named Alia, who happens to be the sweetest, most adorable kitty in the world! She cannot say no to dessert, orange soda, or cinnamon. She loves rats and tatts and rock and roll and wants to be an alien queen when she grows up. You can learn more about Pembroke Sinclair by visiting her at pembrokesinclair.blogspot.com. You can follow the very talented Pembroke on Facebook  Amazon Twitter Or at her blog.


Universal Monsters in Review: House of Frankenstein (1944)

houseoffrank1

I have a bad habit of assuming how movies will turn out. Show me a cast of characters and maybe a movie poster and chances are you’re going to get what you get. With a title like, “House of Frankenstein,” one ought to be able to safely assume the movie is going to be something similar to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello and the great insurgence of American vaudeville. Goofy. Slap-stick. Silly. However, that is not the case with House of Frankenstein. The cast was wonderfully selected, with Boris Karloff returning not as the stumbling monster, but as the mad scientist. The story, though not without blemish, is interestingly layered. The pace holds steady, clocking in a traditional 70-80 mins. While Karloff holds your attention whenever he’s on screen, the character who impressed me the most is unknown character actor J. Carrol Naish who played the hunchback Daniel. Yes, he uttered the expected “Yes, Master,” whenever addressing Karloff’s character (Dr. Niemann). But there were other moments, especially concerning love interest Rita Hussman (Anne Gwynne) in which he truly shines. This is the second Frankenstein movie in which I found myself more in awe with the hunchback than with the monster. Names have changed, but motives remain the same. The pursuit of life after death, the creation of life, and the improvement of the human form. The latter was played up more with this movie than the others, as both Daniel and Larry Talbot desire new improved bodies, free of their respective so-called flaws. Oh yes, the Wolfman is in this picture, as is Dracula, played by a new actor, John Carradine. I’m not sure why they didn’t just hire Bela Lugosi, who is known to work for cheap. But look at me blabbing on. Before I chase another rabbit, lets see what our special guest has to say about House of Frankenstein.

 

House of Frankenstein (1944)
horror, fantasy, science fiction

By: Channy Dreadful

Director: Erle C. Kenton

Screenplay Writer: Edward T. Lowe Jr. (billed as Edward T. Lowe)

Story Writer: Curt Siodmak

Main Cast: Boris Karloff as Doctor Gustav Niemann, J. Carrol Naish as Daniel the hunchbacked assistant, John Carradine as Dracula, Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot (AKA the Wolf Man), and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein’s monster

Detailed plot summary:
may contain minor plot spoilers!

The movie begins on a dark and stormy night in the jail cell of Doctor Niemann and his evil hunchbacked assistant Daniel. Lightning crashes and the wall separating Niemann and Daniel crumbles down and the two men escape from the prison that once contained them. The duo embarks on a journey to search for Doctor Frankenstein’s research so Niemann can also reanimate the dead.

While running through the trees, they arrive on a dirt road and see the travelling horror show owned by the great Professor Lampini stuck in the ditch. Niemann and Daniel help pull him out and request that he take them with him to repay their act of kindness. He reluctantly agrees, and the three men begin their journey.

Lampini tells the men about his most popular attraction, which he claims is the real skeleton of the late great Dracula himself — stake through what-used-to-be-his-heart and all. He then continues on with the folklore of the vampire, and how if anyone ever removes the stake from where it stands Dracula himself will return and will cause havoc throughout the world. Niemann laughs at his accusations and doubts the man’s stories. The carriage comes to a fork in the road and Niemann requests that they go to Reigelberg so they can talk to the burgomaster there – who, unbeknownst to Lampini, was the man who had had Niemann arrested. Lampini argues and said that is not where his next show will be taking place, so with a nod of approval from Niemann Daniel then kills Lampini and the man driving the horse-drawn carriage.

houseoffrank2

The scene then cuts to Burgomaster Hussman of Reigelberg, his grandson Carl, and his fiancée Rita discussing whether or not to attend the traveling horror show that is set up on display in town for tonight only. With much convincing from Rita, they decide to attend.

Her face lights up upon their arrival and they see many freakshow-esque horrors on display. Niemann, acting as Professor Lampini, arrives on stage and begins introducing the main act, the skeleton of Dracula. The crowd heckles and claims the man to be a fraud, but the burgomaster says to Carl that he recognizes that man from somewhere. Once the show is over and the curtains close, Niemann idly removes the stake from the skeleton’s heart and Dracula begins to reform and appear right before their very eyes. Niemann tells Dracula that if he does what he requests of him he will not stake him, and will have his coffin ready and prepared for him before the dawn of each day for when he returns.

The burgomaster, Carl and Rita all start to walk home when they get picked up by a carriage. Unknowingly by the group, Dracula, who introduces himself as Baron Latos, is also on that same carriage. After some conversation the burgomaster invites Latos to his home for a few drinks. He accepts the invitation, and once they arrive Dracula is left in the room alone with Rita. Rita gazes into his eyes and becomes entranced as she stares upon the ring he’s wearing. Dracula asks the woman what she sees and she claims to see a strange world, a world of people who are dead but are alive. Dracula states that it is the place he just returned from, and Rita says it frightens her and that she is scared of it. He comforts and informs her that if she wears his ring it will drive away her fears. He then slides the ring on to her finger and she begins to see the world as Dracula does and is instantly under his spell. He tells his that he will come for her before down and he bids the burgomaster farewell and leaves his abode.

houseoffrank3

The burgomaster begins work in his office, and finally comes to the realization as to where he recognizes Lampini from, and that he is actually Dr. Gustav Neiman. He begins to call the authorities as Dracula returns to his home and transforms into a bat. He flies to the burgomaster and begins to kill him and drink his blood.

During the murder of the burgomaster, Rita is upstairs along with Carl and she begins speaking in a very strange way and he begins to get frightened. He then notices that she is wearing a ring that he had not seen her wearing before and recognizes it, coming to the conclusion that it once belonged to Dracula. In a panic, Carl rushes downstairs only to find his grandfather dead with two bite-wounds exposed on his neck. Carl calls the police informing them of what happened. While Carl is talking to the police Rita leaves with Dracula in a horse-drawn carriage. Just as they are leaving, the policemen on horses arrive and chase after them. The carriage crashes as the sun starts to rise. Dracula scrambles to get to his coffin (which had fallen out of the carriage) but does not make it in before his turn back into a skeleton. The ring slides off of Rita’s finger and she is now free from Dracula’s spell.

Niemann and Daniel witness all that happens and leave Dracula behind and continue on their way in search of any and all research that Doctor Frankenstein may have left behind. Eventually the two make it to the village of Frankenstein’s, and discover the ruins that were once his castle. Within the ruins they discover an ice cave, in which they find frozen in solid ice the Wolf Man and Frankenstein’s monster. Niemann and Daniel build a fire and are able to free the two creatures from the ice. The Wolf Man wakes up and begins to turn into his human form Larry Talbot, who asks the men why they would free him and the monster that lives within.

houseoffrank4

Niemann offers Talbot help and says that if he can help him find Frankenstein’s research that he will be able to build him a new brain which will be free from the Wolf Man, and that he can live the life he had always wanted. Talbot agrees and the men start searching and tearing down walls and removing bricks until they finally discover a book written by Henry Frankenstein titled “Experiments in Life and Death”.

Now that they have finally found what they were searching for, Niemann, Daniel, Talbot and the monster return back to Niemann’s lab to begin working on the monster and returning him to the world of the living. Talbot begins to panic and requesting that the Doctor begin work on him first, seeing as that evening there will be a full moon. Niemann shoos him off, saying he must work on the monster first, but to begin his work he will first need to find his two nemeses who helped put him in jail, Herr Strauss and Herr Ullman.

With the help of Daniel he finds the men, kidnaps them and takes them back to his lab. He explains that he needs Ullman’s brain for the monster to be able to come back to life and that he wants to put Talbot’s brain into Strauss’s body so that Strauss will be the one who has to carry the curse of the Wolf Man.

Will he succeed? Will Talbot get the life he always dreamed of? What will happen to Niemann and Daniel if the monster is resurrected from the dead? For answers to all of these questions and more you will just have to watch House of Frankenstein.

houseoffrank6

Pros:

Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., and John Carradine’s acting is nothing but of the highest quality as per usual. The group put on an amazing performance, giving you the feel of true classic horror and provided the stepping stones to many horror movies that we see in more recent years.

The reveal of Dracula was well played out, starting with being a skeleton in a horror freak show and having the stake still in his heart. It was dark and mysterious and you are left wondering if the skeleton was just a set up to make Lampini money or if he somehow got his hands on the real skeleton of Count Dracula. His transformation scenes, turning from skeleton to vampire and from vampire to bat as well as bat to vampire, were amazingly done for the time and looked more realistic than many things that I see today. A lot of directors and special effects crew can really take a few pointers and learn how to properly achieve a fun but effective transformation scene by watching this film.

I absolutely loved the death of Dracula in this film. It was dramatic and the setting was brilliant. In a way, the audience kind of feels bad for him because he is trying so hard to crawl to his coffin and make it in before the sun rises, and he gets so close to doing so before the first beam of light hits his skin and all that is left of him is the bones that we see at the very start of the film.

Later in the film, the discovery of the monster and the Wolf Man was done in such a creative and different way that really drew in my attention. It’s definitely possible that this is the logical progression from the events of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), where the monster and Wolf Man get swept in a flood at Frankenstein’s castle, starring the same actors. The hidden ice cave below Frankenstein’s castle in a way was very reminiscent of the Thing (1982) for myself, which did not come out before this film but it is a movie that I have seen long before this one. It was creepy, damp and cold and I was unsure of what to expect. Although it was completely unrealistic or possible, it made for an exciting scene to watch. Keep in mind, this is a monster movie, so how realistic do the locations really have to be as long as they keep the audience interested?

houseoffrank5

My favourite part of this film is the inclusion of three of the most famous universal monsters, Dracula, the Wolf Man and the monster. It is one of the main reasons why I chose this movie to review in the first place — well, that and Boris Karloff. I have always been a fan of his work and this was one of his movies that I had not had the pleasure of viewing before. All in all, whether we see them come back from the dead or not, it was great seeing all three in this film with different goals and wanting different outcomes for themselves, which only would be made possible by the doctor.

Cons:

My cons for this film are very minimal and for the most part situational. Although I loved the transformations scenes, there was a time where Dracula turned into a bat and it was very obviously not real and was controlled by strings. I can hardly take any points off due to this seeing the film came out in 1944 and they used all of the technology available to them at the time.

My only other complaint would be the possible universe continuity error being the fact that Boris Karloff plays Doctor Niemann in this film, but in previous Universal Monster movies he plays Frankenstein’s monster. A little bit confusing, but something that you can easily look past seeing as he looks much different in this film then he does playing the monster in Frankenstein (1931.) Glenn Strange has also played the monster in previous films as wells. I am assuming Karloff would have reprised his role as the monster, but the screen time the monster gets in House of Frankenstein is so minimal that it would be a waste of an amazing performance that he could provide.

Rating:

9/10

When Thomas S. Flowers reached out to me and offered me a chance to write a blog post for his website, I was absolutely thrilled. He continued and explained the project to me and sent me a list of movie titles from the Universal Monster series that were still left to choose from. There were a few, including this one, that I still hadn’t seen yet so I did a bit of research and decided to choose this one because of the monsters that were in it. I was not wrong to choose this movie. It was absolutely brilliant from start to finish with hardly a complaint that was relevant to the year that this film came out. The transformation scenes, even nowadays, were brilliantly executed and were even better than a lot of others that we see today in more recent films. Although there were a few minor continuity errors (which is one of the very few reasons I didn’t give a perfect score,) it did not take me out of this film and it was still really enjoyable to watch. Overall I rate this movie a solid 9/10 and recommend that you add this one to your horror movie collection.

xxx

Channy Dreadful

channyd

Chantel Feszczyn — also known as Channy Dreadful — is one creepy ghoul hailing from a small city in Saskatchewan, Canada. She is a regular podcast voice frequenting on the podcasts, with the first being Dead as Hell Horror Podcast, and as well the likes of The Resurrection of Zombie 7, Land of the Creeps and Whedonverse Podcast. For the last three years she has brought her focus towards written reviews, posting occasionally on her Tumblr blog and recently moving to her new website dreadfulreviews.com — where she posts weekly reviews discussing movies, comic books and horror-themed merchandise.

 


D-Day 3D: Normandy 1944 @ Houston Museum of Natural Science

Heads up history nerds! Opening at the Houston Museum of Natural Science between May 23rd and running through June, D-Day 3D: Normandy 1944 is a 3D film presentation what looks to be a docu-drama, blending multiple cinematographic techniques, including animation, CGI and live-action sequences. Though D-day is one of the most violence moments for the U.S. forces during WWII, the presentation looks to be geared toward a younger audience. Just spit-balling here, but D-Day 3D wont be your typically meaty Ken Burns take on the war, instead, according to the Houston Museum of Natural Science website, the presentation will be an educational tribute to those who gave all on the beaches of Normandy, bringing “this monumental event to the world’s largest screens for the first time ever. Audiences of all ages, including new generations, will discover from a new perspective how this landing changed the world. Exploring history, military strategy, science, technology and human values.” Obviously, this isn’t for the “hardcore” of us, but who cares?!? This still looks like fun and its a great promotion for history in general. So get your young-ins together and hitch up the fam-mobile and head downtown and support the troops who stormed those beaches and the history that followed. You can check out the advertisement below. 

 

For more information regarding D-Day 3D, check out the Houston Museum of Natural Science website.

For more information regarding D-Day actual, check out American Experience on PBS.