(Didn't find an existing thread.)
After several years of not reading Freaky Monsters magazine, I thought I’d give current issue #38 a try. Below is my objective review (ok, I get off track at the end).
First, the actual purchase of the magazine was flawless. Good communication on its status, and it arrived about a week and a half after purchase, very nicely and protectively packaged.
As to the content:
Hit(s): the article, “Nightmares in Plastic,” detailing the history of the Aurora plastic monster models during their heyday of the 50s-70s, is smashing. Truly terrific. Actually, Rondo nomination worthy. And the photo reproduction throughout the entire book is of the typical top-notch quality.
Miss(es): the “Shape of Things that Were” piece, which looks at “…some pop culture memories spiced with a few observations of what was really happening…” But lest you think we’re talking about monsters, we’re not. Sonny and Cher, “Mosquito jeeps,” The Monkees TV series, kids riding bikes without safety helmets…yes. Monsters, no. I just don’t know what this is piece is doing in a magazine for “Ghoulden Age Monster Lovers.” Lastly, Freaky has been around for 38 issues now. I do congratulate them for that. But STILL the typos, bad formatting, etc.? Hire a capable proof-reader for your text!
Somewhere in between:
The “Kong at 90” article is…just weird. Given its title, I expected some lengthy retrospective, maybe detailing its history, its enduring legacy and inspiration to current filmmakers, etc. But instead, it’s like two separate articles pieced together. The first, compares (excessively) Kong against the contemporary Universal monster films of the time—finding similarities and differences, such as the subtlety (or non-existence) of violence shown with the Universals vs. the more graphic of Kong; of the similarities of how all the U monsters and Kong could elicit sympathy from viewers; and more along this line. I guess…this is ok for a different take at looking at Kong, but hardly a ‘Kong at 90.’ The second piece is a short career showcase of Kong’s Robert Armstrong. While ok by itself, I feel that this piece was tacked on to expand the whole article. Lastly, I get the feeling that this could be more accurately labeled “Kong at 70,” rather than 90, as a concluding remark states: “Fan (sic) eagerly await the release of Peter Jackson’s KING KONG in December 2005.” Nothing wrong if a reprint, plenty of other magazines do the same, but I expected new material. I will say that the number of behind-the-scenes photos that accompany the text, several of which depicted “how it was done,” are incredible. I’ve never seen some of these before.
“Son of Lon” – a look at Chaney Jr is a perfectly acceptable typical career piece, but the supposed emphasis on Jr's “golden voice” is given short shrift.
The cover: Kong, by Arlis. Very nice. After all these years, though, they are (although I haven’t purchased the magazine in a great while, I have kept up with observing their covers) having a “sameness” effect on me. I wish FM would try switching things up with a different artist.
Lastly, two annoyances that detract from the enjoyment of the issue and will keep me from purchasing future issues:
After several years of not reading Freaky Monsters magazine, I thought I’d give current issue #38 a try. Below is my objective review (ok, I get off track at the end).
First, the actual purchase of the magazine was flawless. Good communication on its status, and it arrived about a week and a half after purchase, very nicely and protectively packaged.
As to the content:
Hit(s): the article, “Nightmares in Plastic,” detailing the history of the Aurora plastic monster models during their heyday of the 50s-70s, is smashing. Truly terrific. Actually, Rondo nomination worthy. And the photo reproduction throughout the entire book is of the typical top-notch quality.
Miss(es): the “Shape of Things that Were” piece, which looks at “…some pop culture memories spiced with a few observations of what was really happening…” But lest you think we’re talking about monsters, we’re not. Sonny and Cher, “Mosquito jeeps,” The Monkees TV series, kids riding bikes without safety helmets…yes. Monsters, no. I just don’t know what this is piece is doing in a magazine for “Ghoulden Age Monster Lovers.” Lastly, Freaky has been around for 38 issues now. I do congratulate them for that. But STILL the typos, bad formatting, etc.? Hire a capable proof-reader for your text!
Somewhere in between:
The “Kong at 90” article is…just weird. Given its title, I expected some lengthy retrospective, maybe detailing its history, its enduring legacy and inspiration to current filmmakers, etc. But instead, it’s like two separate articles pieced together. The first, compares (excessively) Kong against the contemporary Universal monster films of the time—finding similarities and differences, such as the subtlety (or non-existence) of violence shown with the Universals vs. the more graphic of Kong; of the similarities of how all the U monsters and Kong could elicit sympathy from viewers; and more along this line. I guess…this is ok for a different take at looking at Kong, but hardly a ‘Kong at 90.’ The second piece is a short career showcase of Kong’s Robert Armstrong. While ok by itself, I feel that this piece was tacked on to expand the whole article. Lastly, I get the feeling that this could be more accurately labeled “Kong at 70,” rather than 90, as a concluding remark states: “Fan (sic) eagerly await the release of Peter Jackson’s KING KONG in December 2005.” Nothing wrong if a reprint, plenty of other magazines do the same, but I expected new material. I will say that the number of behind-the-scenes photos that accompany the text, several of which depicted “how it was done,” are incredible. I’ve never seen some of these before.
“Son of Lon” – a look at Chaney Jr is a perfectly acceptable typical career piece, but the supposed emphasis on Jr's “golden voice” is given short shrift.
The cover: Kong, by Arlis. Very nice. After all these years, though, they are (although I haven’t purchased the magazine in a great while, I have kept up with observing their covers) having a “sameness” effect on me. I wish FM would try switching things up with a different artist.
Lastly, two annoyances that detract from the enjoyment of the issue and will keep me from purchasing future issues:
- One, in the Letters page, a reader asks Ferry’s opinion about the “New Famous Monsters magazine.” I’m assuming the reader means the forthcoming version 4.0. In response, Ferry sadly (because of its predictability launches into yet another (albeit very short) rant against a certain party and certain fans (unnamed/lumped together). Really, Ray, it’s been DECADES. Let it go. I could expect the response: “Well, a reader asked.” Yes, say I, but you didn’t have to print that letter…that was a deliberate choice. And the letter happens to be one of two from a Doug in NJ.
- Second, in kicking off the “Shape” article, another slam: “Many ‘youthful recollection’ articles that run in other so-called classic monsters magazines that are still around generally focus on the frivolous memories of seniors recalling their time as 8-year-olds.” Really? Was that necessary? I’M a reader, and sometimes contributor of, such ‘frivolous memories.’ Insulting.
statistics: Posted by jimrnemeth — 12:22 PM - Today — Replies 2 — Views 135