I picked up this the other day.
(https://i.imgur.com/FFptbWA.jpeg)
A 30 movie collection of Universal classic monsters.
While I wouldn't say it's the Complete Universal Monster collection (for instance it lacks Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame for starters) it's a very good start.
So I've decided that for this Halloween season, I'm going to watch them all. Some of these it's been ages since I've seen. Some of these I've never seen at all. And, after watching them, I thought I'd share some thoughts on each of them.
I thought Dracula was a good place to start. You know the story, so I'm not going to go over that it's been condensed in certain ways anyway. While many people have said the movie itself feels stiff or slow, it never really felt that way to me. Bela and Dwight both managed to make every single scene they were in feel like masterpieces. Lugosi had such a high class evil charm to him that you can't take your eyes off the guy. I also loved the decor. The huge empty crumbling ruins that he lived in felt just so perfect and majestic.
That's not say the movie is without fault. John Harker's character felt incredibly flat and there were plenty of instances where the characters just described scenes that would have been wonderful to actually see. Likewise Lucy seemed like an after thought, an after thought that was immediately forgotten. They never do taken care of her, also Dracula's brides are still back home (a follow up on either of these two points could have made for a wonderful sequel.)
I also want to say that Helen Chandler rarely gets mentioned in discussions about the movie, but she showed a few wonderful moments as Mina, especially when you see her beginning to slip into vampire mode.
You could argue the Hunchback isn't a monster (and that it isn't a horror film), but there's no case for calling it complete if it doesn't have the Phantom.
Movie #2
Frankenstein.
You know, I don't think I've ever actually watched this whole thing before. I know I've seen tons of clips, but sitting through it, there was so much that I didn't recognize. Or maybe it's just that so much of the movie had been replaced in my memory with the various parodies and tributes over the years.
Things like the villagers going after The Monster not because he's a monster. In fact, I don't think they ever acknowledge that he is. They certainly don't seem to learn that Frankenstein created him. They go after him because he killed a little girl. I was also used to a more lumbering slower monster and I didn't realize that other than being a bit clumsy, Boris plays him no slower or less agile than you're average person.
The fact that Frankenstein is one of the people that LEADS the angry mob was another thing I'd either forgotten or didn't realize.
In comparing it with Dracula, it's a fairly common opinion that this is the superior movie. While I will say the camera work was probabaly better, it lacked the gravity and pull of Bela's and Dwight's performances in Dracula.
While Dwight Frye does get to do a hunchback in this movie, his role isn't nearly as much or energetic as his role as Reinfield. Likewise, Edward Van Sloan who was Van Helsing in Dracula gets to play a science teacher in this movie and his role seems even more pompous and know-it all with far less effect on the plot. Also Baron Frankenstein feels like a failed attempt at comedy relief.
Not saying this is a bad movie, it's certainly earned it's status as a classic, Boris is great. Cloin Clive is great. I just think Dracula was better.
I think I probably agree w/ you - "gravity" is a good term w/ which to praise DRACULA. Neither film is perfect but FRANKENSTEIN often feels "lighter" than DRACULA somehow - not in tone but perhaps in substance. Of course BRIDE was an improvement on FRANK, though (heresy, perhaps) I don't think BRIDE is a perfect film, either.
Next up ...
The Mummy
While Boris doesn't spend a lot of time in bandages during this movie, it's not as disappointing as one might think when it comes to Mummy content. The way he moves and talks in this film, you never forget that this is a man who has been dead a very long time.
Another interesting thing this movie seems to have going for it is that whatever censorship standards they had back then, they seemed to relax for this one. We actually have blood. There was a gather gruesome (for it's time) scene where some people got speared. The movie also puts our leading lady in a rather revealing outfit in the end, and she looks good in it.
Funny thing about the plot though, is that the long dead person that's trying to reunite with the reincarnation of his old love somehow over the year shifted away from Mummy storylines to Dracula. I honestly think it works better here, but I can understand why people would think a well dressed, sleek, dark foreigner would eb more appealing as a love interest than an old dried out shriveled corpse.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 06, 2025, 01:06:40 PMNext up ...
The Mummy
Another interesting thing this movie seems to have going for it is that whatever censorship standards they had back then, they seemed to relax for this one. We actually have blood. There was a gather gruesome (for it's time) scene where some people got speared. The movie also puts our leading lady in a rather revealing outfit in the end, and she looks good in it.
THE MUMMY is actually a pre-Hays code film. The Code began to be enforced in 1934.
I just thought that it was notable that the movie seemed less restrained than either Dracula or Frankenstein did.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 06, 2025, 01:17:00 PMI just thought that it was notable that the movie seemed less restrained than either Dracula or Frankenstein did.
It is. Tod Browning wasn't shy about adding daring content to his movies (he made FREAKS after this). James Whale was more restrained, but audiences of the time thought FRANKENSTEIN was pretty ghastly.
Some of Universal's films where the big name monsters weren't the main attraction are some of the best- the RAVEN (1935), the BLACK CAT (1934), and the OLD DARK HOUSE (1932). the RAVEN may be Bela Lugosi's most evil, mad role.
Of the Universal Monster movies, my top 3 favorites are- SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939),DRACULA (1931), and FRANKENSTEIN (1931).
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 07, 2025, 07:47:16 AMOf the Universal Monster movies, my top 3 favorites are- SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939),DRACULA (1931), and FRANKENSTEIN (1931).
For me it's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, FRANKENSTEIN, and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). THE BLACK CAT would be in my top three, but it's technically not a "monster" movie.
The Invisible Man
For the first time we move away from gothic setting, creepy tombs, and into something more modern. (It was modern when they made it anyway.) The move makes up for the lack of atmosphere from the previous films by being a lot faster paced and generally energetic. While some off comic relief is more apparent here, Claude Rains manages to make up for it with a very wonderfully sinister and egomanical performance. I can only imagine how breath taking the effects must have been back then, because even now they don't look that bad (for the most part. There's a few instances where they don't quite work.) This is also the deadliest of the monsters so far, with a confirmed body count over over 120 people killed.
It's kind of a shame that typically the big monster actors of the era are considered Karloff, Lugosi, and the Chaneys because Rains deserves more recognition.
I remember reading about all of these movies in Denis Gifford's wonderful book A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF HORROR MOVIES which I got as a birthday gift in 1986 and still have. 😊
The Bride of Frankenstein
I think this is actually better than the first Frankenstein. Boris gets a lot more to do, acting wise. The lighting and camera work feel a lot more dynamic and there's some good strong emotional beats. You feel almost as bad for the blind hermit that the monster befriends as you do the monster himself. Dr. Pretorius was another good strong addition to the cast and far more sinister than Dr. Frankenstein. Despite being set (sort of) immediately after the end of the first movie, there are a few hiccups and continuity issues. Baron Frankenstein was an important character in the first movie and doesn't even appear in this one at all. Likewise the Burgomaster is a different person entirely and the completely ignore how Henry Frankenstein was brought back home to recover at the end of the first movie and start this movie with him still at the windmill. Still, I suppose if you're not watching them one after the other like I have been, it'd probabaly be less noticeable.
One thing I do think is worth noting as the Bride of Frankenstein herself. She's one of the most iconic movie monsters in history. Perhaps the single most famous female monster ... and she appears in this movie for less than five minutes, has no lines, and mostly just looks around with jerky head movements and shrieks.
I heard at one point, Dr. Pretorius was supposed to kill Elizabeth (Dr. Frankenstein's wife) and use her heart for the monster, but they changed that because it would be too gruesome and they wanted a happier ending. It would make some sense though, considering how she kept going to Henry for comfort from the monster.
Realistically, Claude Rains was a much better actor than Karloff or the Chaneys and even a better actor than *choke* Bela (who I revere). I'd argue that the image of his character wrapped in bandages is iconic, but even Karloff and Chaney covered in makeup are still Karloff and Chaney... whereas of course Rains is the "Invisible" Man so culturally we don't associate Rains' image w/ the character. :bluesad:
And I agree, the Bride is the most iconic of them all!!!
Werewolf of London.
This one is an unusual one. It doesn't have any of the familiar cast we've seen in the previous movies. It doesn't have any really familiar characters. It predates the Wolfman, so all the typically werewolf cliches haven't been established yet. This lets it go some unusual directions. For example, werewolfism is treated more of as a medical disease than a curse. It doesn't take silver to kill a werewolf. There's actually an antidote, but it only lasts for a single night. After transforming intoa werewolf, the guy is still intelligent enough to take a coat and a hat to disguise himself. Most interestingly though, is the idea that a werewolf MUST kill every night they're transformed or the transformation is permanent. They never really go into detail with this though or confirm it. Considering one of the TWO werewolves (!) in this movie has been a werewolf for years ... well... he must have killed a lot of people.
The movie leans hard into the ideas of jealousy and bad marriages. There's also an odd bit at the start of the movie with a plant that has moving tentacles and eats a live frog. It's a weird and interesting little thing, but it never becomes important to the plot and is forgotten after the one scene it's in.
Most disappointingly of all though, is that we never once see a werewolf drinking a pino colada at Trader Vic's.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 12, 2025, 10:36:18 PMConsidering one of the TWO werewolves (!) in this movie has been a werewolf for years ... well... he must have killed a lot of people.
Little old lady got mutilated late last night...
Werewolves of London again!Warren Z really did his research! :teddyr:
Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 09, 2025, 08:28:09 PMThe Invisible Man
For the first time we move away from gothic setting, creepy tombs, and into something more modern. (It was modern when they made it anyway.) The move makes up for the lack of atmosphere from the previous films by being a lot faster paced and generally energetic. While some off comic relief is more apparent here, Claude Rains manages to make up for it with a very wonderfully sinister and egomanical performance. I can only imagine how breath taking the effects must have been back then, because even now they don't look that bad (for the most part. There's a few instances where they don't quite work.) This is also the deadliest of the monsters so far, with a confirmed body count over over 120 people killed.
It's kind of a shame that typically the big monster actors of the era are considered Karloff, Lugosi, and the Chaneys because Rains deserves more recognition.
I used to study at the Boston Public Library in college and they would show movies in the big hall in the basement. I took a break from studying and watched this one night. It was me and a fair amount of homeless people. It seemed to go over very well, especially when he starts to lose his marbles.
You don't see any of the Acquanetta "Wild Women" films ever mentioned with the other big name monsters. Not that their all that good, but at least as good as some of the Lon Chaney Mummy movies.
(https://i.imgur.com/R4qGaUZ.png) (https://lunapic.com)
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 15, 2025, 02:49:18 AMYou don't see any of the Acquanetta "Wild Women" films ever mentioned with the other big name monsters. Not that their all that good, but at least as good as some of the Lon Chaney Mummy movies.
(https://i.imgur.com/R4qGaUZ.png) (http://\"https://lunapic.com%5C")
You don't. She's not even in the set I have. I'm also just now noticing it's lack of Mole People and This Island Earth. (I've already mentioned it's lacking in other areas too.) If I get a chance, I'll try to slip a few of them in at the end.
And for the latest movie ... Dracula's Daughter.
This movie appeals to me. Not that the others I've watched don't, but I feel I have more to say about this one because nobody ever talks about it like they do the others.
In a way this movie could have been so much more, but I like what we did get. Much like the Bride of Frankenstein, this sequel seems to take place immediately after the first one ends, and involves Von Helsing (it was Van in the first movie. No idea why the change.) being caught at the scene of the crime with a dead Dracula and a dead Renfield. John and Mina are curiously absent and never mentioned. Dracula's daughter Countess Marya (pronounced 'Maria') Zaleska comes to claim and destroy his body hoping that would end her curse. It doesn't and she tries tog et a psychiatrist to help her break break her vampirism habit. That sounds like a bad joke but it isn't.
I have to say, the Countess is quite the character. While lacking Bela's accent (and sadly he never gets to appear in this movie either), her looks and the way she acts makes one fully believe that she could be his offspring. She's very high class, while a cold demanding presence and while not the traditional beauty she's by no means unattractive.
She's also cinemas first self loathing vampire and it's first lesbian vampire. In all honesty, she should be a lot more popular than she is. And she has a neat little ring that she uses to hypnotize people.
There's been some debate between viewers as whether or not she really even is a vampire. They point out she's able to hold a cross and doesn't display any vampire powers on screen. Personally I don't buy that. We know she kills people by sucking out their blood and leaving two puncture marks in their neck and it's not like Lugosi showed a lot of powers on screen either.
Also very notable is her servant Sandor, he's creepy in a way that still holds up wonderfully. He's like the anti-Renfield. Calm and collected, carefully well groomed, and continues to push her towards evil when it's obvious she doesn't want to be that way anymore.
Sadly, the movies heroic leads are lacking. The main couple tends to come off as unlikable a good hunk of the time and Von Helsing ... he does some pretty stupid stuff. When they find the body of Dracula, he matter of factually tells them "Yeah, I killed the guy. He was 500 years old already") and continues to try to explain vampires to people when he should be trying to make it look like he's not a multiple murderer.
Great review! I've never seen D'S D and now I want to check it out. :cheers:
I could've sworn I already posted that I agree that DRACULA'S DAUGHTER is underrated.
Son of Frankenstein.
THIS is the movie where they knock it out of the park. Good camera work, fast moving plot, strong characters, no lapses in logic or forced comedy relief. This so far, feels like the gold standard. It's got Karloff, Lugosi, Lionell Atwill, and Basil Rathbone all giving top performances.
For the first time, our sequel doesn't pick up right after the previous movie ends. This time it takes place a good deal longer. How long? So long that a child who wasn't even born in the last movie has grown up to be Basil Rathbone and has a young boy of his own.
The Son of Frankenstein (now Von Frankenstein for some reason), has returned to the town where his father ... well, you know what his father did. There he encounters a broken necked convict named Ygor who leads him to his father's monster, and he revives it, obviously FOR SCIENCE!! and to clear his father's good name. Things go bad.
One amusing tidbit is that even back then, the character expressed frustration that people were calling the monster by his family's name.
The character work in this is great. Wolf von Frankenstein (great name by the way) is even MORE arrogant than his father had been, and when he finally looses his cool, even more unstable.
Bela Lugosi is completely unrecognizable as Ygor. He lacks any of the charm and class you expect from Lugosi, while managing to pull of the evil just as strongly. Within seconds you know this is a very dangerous man, a man that cannot be trusted, and a bad liar. And unfortunatly, he's the only one the Monster of Frankenstein will listen to. They're "friends" and as his friend, the monster kills whoever Ygor tells him to.
Lionell Atwill plays the town's Inspector, a far more reasonable and understanding person than you would expect, especially given how when he was a child, the Monster ripped one of his arms right off. There are scene with him and Basil where the two of them seem to be doing their best to act act the other. It's fun stuff.
While the monster himself doesn't get a lot to do, there are a few really good scenes with him, especially how he handles the death of his only real friend.
The movie also has one of the first real action scene we've seen so far.
if there's anything bad I can say about it, it's just really minor things. The movie doesn't seem to follow continuity of it's predecessors that well. I already mentioned the change in Frankenstein's name. The town itself has also changed names. I forget what it was before, but now the town itself is known as Frankenstein. Also, while Frankenstein's lab being far away from his house was a significant plot point in the previous movies, here it's located right next to each other.
Over all though, Grade A flick.
The Invisible Man Returns
The Invisible man does not return. This movie has an entirely different Invisible man. But he's also Vincent Price. However this is very early in Vincent Price's career and he hasn't quite mastered the evil tone of voice he's better known for. Then again, he is the good guy in this movie. Aside for some brief moments of madness, where he talk about what he's going to do, he really doesn't do anything mad. The movie is mostly about him trying to clear his name from being framed for murdering his own brother.
The effects are more ambitious in this movie than the previous Invisible man, but don't hold up quite as well.
This is a monster movie, but not really horror in any real way. However it does firmly establish that Vincent Price is one of the Universal Monsters. Don't let anyone tell you any different.
If you wanted to follow the previous naming conventions of the other sequels, this movie could be Brother of the Invisible Man.
The Mummy's Hand
This movie almost feels at odds with itself. It starts off the exact same way the original Mummy did, same backstory. Guy gets mummified alive for trying to resurrect a dead princess he loved. However the first movie brought him back as a undead sorcerer. This movie gives us more of the shambling mute wrapped in bandages that most people expect from Mummy movies. However that also makes him a servant or a weapon to the person who's doing the real killing so that's a toss up.
While the movie has some great atmospheric scenes, much of it focuses on a comedic duo that feels like a "hasn't quite mastered their gimmick yet" version of Abbott and Costello. It's not that they aren't entertaining, it's just it's not quite what I came from in a Mummy movie. The mummy really doesn't even show up until about 40 minutes into an hour long movie.
He does look really cool though.
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 07, 2025, 07:47:16 AMOf the Universal Monster movies, my top 3 favorites are- SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939),DRACULA (1931), and FRANKENSTEIN (1931).
All great.
I need to watch a few of these. There's a few I haven't seen.
Of the ones I did watch, I quite adore Bride of Frankenstein the most.
The Invisible Woman
This one gets included with the Universal Monsters movies, but it's not really a monster movie. It's not horror either. It has no connection to any of the past Invisible Man movies. It's really a screwball comedy. It's not a bad one either. It won't have you laughing out loud, but it's cute.
It's also got Shemp Howard without any of the other Stooges, Margret Hamilton of Wicked Witch fame, and John Barrymore as a delightfully daft scientist. There's also Charlie Ruggles, who I had to go and look up because I didn't know where I knew him from. He's one of those actors that has a lot of roles and a long career, but nothing really starring. He does a wonderful job here as the butler and get a lot of the strong comedy bits.
It's really a silly movie, but it's got a very strong cast and it's pretty fun.
Wolfman.
Wolfman is such an iconic Universal Monster that it's hard to believe we got three Invisible Man movies and three Frankenstein's before he even appeared. We're back to some very wonderfully moody foggy settings. Larry Talbot is called back to his father's castle after his brother's death. You never really think of the Wolfman having a castle, but there it is. Larry Talbot's father is played by Claude Rains, and it's not that Claude does a bad job, but it's hard to imagine these two as father and son. In real life there is about a 16 year age difference between the two men, so it's not like it would be impossible, but it's a a hard nut to swallow.
There's a brief but powerful and memorable role by Bela Lugosi as a gypsy. Now here I'm going to have to admit to something that will make RC hate me. My entire life I thought his name was pronounced "Bell-uh" but here, Bela plays a gypsy named Bela and everyone calls him "BAY-la." I've totally been saying his name wrong this entire time.
Chaney does a wonderful job as a likeable romantic lead, but his real strength comes through in the scenes where he has to be sad, pathetic, and afraid. He knocks that out of the park. If I have any complaints about this, is that we don't get ENOUGH Wolfman.
If I have a second complaint, the thing they do with his feet where they try to make it look more wolflike... it just doesn't work. It just makes him look like he's walking on tiptoes.
Ghost of Frankenstein.
The Ghost of Frankenstein is only in this movie for about a minute and does very little to affect the plot.
The movie starts with an angry mob as a change of pace. Tired of living under the "curse" of the Frankenstein family, they storm the castle and blow it up. There's actually some really nice set pieces here and a wonderful gothic feeling. Anyway, Ygor has survived the last movie and the explosions the villager set accidentally revive the monster. Ygor and the Monster escape and go to find the other son of Dr. Frankenstein and help restore the Monster. Our good doctor gets the idea that if if he exchanged the monsters brain for a better one, everything will work out and be good. However, Ygor has the wonderful idea that the monster should have HIS brain.
Okay, weird thing here. In Son of Frankenstein, Wolf Frankenstein was married to a woman named Elsa. In this movie, the other son has a daughter named Elsa. Kinda bizarre.
Really, this movie is kind of lackluster. This is our third Dr. Frankenstein and he lacks the intensity of his father and the arrogance of his brother. He's just kind of dull in comparison. Likewise Lon Chaney has taken over the role of the Frankenstein's Monster and he doesn't bring any of the emotion to the role that Boris did. His monster is where we get the stumbling silent brute idea from. Even Bela's Ygor seems rather lacking in this movie. His makeup and design feel a lot cleaner than previously, and he doesn't seem to have near the evil sleaziness he did before. It's like Lugosi wasn't really even trying this time.
This is apparently the last time the Frankenstein's Monster get a movie of his own. From here, he'll be sharing the spotlight with other monsters when he appears.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on September 27, 2025, 06:31:53 PMGhost of Frankenstein.
Okay, weird thing here. In Son of Frankenstein, Wolf Frankenstein was married to a woman named Elsa. In this movie, the other son has a daughter named Elsa. Kinda bizarre.
And "Bride of Frankenstein" starred a woman named Elsa.
Oh boy, did it ever! :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:
I don't recall ever watching SON OF... but I've seen GHOST OF..., and although I didn't like it too much, I still liked Bela plenty. Whenever anyone suggests that Bela "wasn't trying" et al, it always makes me admire him a little bit more. I'll take Bela Not Trying over many other actors Trying any day!
The Invisible Agent
Here we once again stray from the horror and even the monster aspect. Our Invisible Man is a war hero. When Nazis and a very wonderful and sadistic Peter Lorre (who actually plays a Japanese man here, yeah, I know...) track down the grandson of the original Invisible Man and threaten his life for the formula, he instead agrees to become the Invisible Man for the US military.
This is very much a wartime propaganda movie, but it's not a bad one. Our hero is actually shown to be somewhat bad at his job. The fact that he can't resist playing pranks on a Nazi leaders or eating right out in the open where he can be seen immediately cause him problems and nearly blow everything. Likewise, the Nazis seems to be very on the ball and quite competent, which was a rarity back then, even if they do still feel the need to constantly backstab each other.
And some of the Invisible effects are just great. Especially the scene where he's in the bath lathering up his invisible body with soap.
I wasn't wild about GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN either. Or SON OF DRACULA. Chaney is wonderful as the wolfman, but a little too well feed to be a walking corpse or a vampire. Don't get me wrong! I love Lon Chaney! OF MICE AND MEN (1939) is a classic! "I like the dogs, George!"
As far as SON OF FRANKENSTEIN- yeh. That hits all the buttons.
The Mummy's Tomb
It's a movie.
The Tomb doesn't really play any important part in the Mummy's Tomb. Mostly the Mummy goes around strangling people with one hand. In the Mummy's Hand, the main character discover the mummy's tomb. Seems like the titles on these two movies could be switched.
Anyway, the mummy's tomb starts 30 years after the Mummy's Hand, and spends the first 10 minutes (of a 60 minute film) showing footage from that movie while the main character gives us a "Previously on The Mummy" explanation.
So, 30 years later the High Priest (who DIDN'T die when he got shot in the Mummy's Hand) decides to seek revenge against the people who desecrated the tomb. He passes his title, and his mummy over to a new High Priest that moves to America and sicks the Mummy on the family of the guys from the first movie.
The may be the first movie to utilize that tried and true horror sequel cliche of bringing back the cast from the first movie only to kill them early on.
Other than that, the Mummy just kind of walks around alot. There are some pretty long shots of the mummy just walking and Chaney doesn't exactly bring a lot to the role. There is a decent fight in a burning building though.
Oh, and there's also one scene where you can clearly see the "tombstones" blowing in the wind.
I mean, if you have to watch a monster movie, this is a monster movie, but it's not exactly one I'd highly recommend.
Frankenstein meets the Wolfman
One one hand, this feels back to classic standards. Mad science, castles, angry mobs, old villages, mist, and all that fun stuff.
On the other hand, the editing of this did Bela wrong. We'll get to that in a second.
The movie starts with grave robbers exposing Larry Talbotts non-decayed body to moon light where he comes to life again. As good as he was in the last movie, he's even better here as a man who is completely lost and without hope. All he wants to do is die, but he knows the curse of the Wolfman won't even let him do that for good.
After a brief hospitalization, he tracks down Maleva, the old gypsy woman from the previous movie for help. She tells him that she knows a doctor that's able to help people that are otherwise beyond help. Dr. Frankenstein.
What she doesn't know is ... well, what's been going on in the Frankenstein movies. The doctor is dead. His lab was blown up. The monster is frozen in ice. Let's talk about the monster for a brief moment.
When last we saw the Frankenstein, he had Ygor's brain put in his body and was blind. This movie makes no mention of either. Apparently, they were going to, that's why they had Lugosi as the monster, but for whatever reason the cut all of Lugosi's lines. So there's no explanation for why he's walking around with his hands stretched out.
Anyway, back to the Wolfman. With the help of a doctor and the Baroness Elsa Frankenstein (the daughter Elsa, not the wife Elsa) they plan on using Dr. Frankenstein's notes to drain the life energy out of the Wolfman and let him die, and they'll do the same with the Frankenstein's Monster. However like all good doctors in these movies, he goes a little nuts and decided that he absolutley has to see what Frankenstein is like at full power.
There is a very brief shot of Bela as the Monster smiling wickedly as he realizes he's getting restored, and it is wonderfully chilling. It makes one wonder what the movie would have been life if they had allowed Bela to really play the Monster like he played Ygor.
Anyway though, there's a full moon, the two monsters fight, and a particularly angry villager (one's who's even angrier and madder than your average angry villager) decided to BLOW UP THE DAM and let the water destroy what's left of Frankenstein's lab. And the two monsters are swept away in the waters.
This is a fun one. I'd put it right up there with the other classics.
OH! and I almost forgot to mention, the movie actually has a surprisingly catch musical number.
Initially seeing that title made me think I should revisit this one (after decades!) to enjoy it and Bela again. Then you reminded me of why I haven't revisited it in decades. I just watched a Universal "monster" movie starring Lugosi which I bet isn't in your set, and it reminded me of the worst kind of Lugosi role - the one that denies him the ability to do anything interesting whatsoever. Those are hard to watch, and when people claim Bela was a "bad" actor, maybe those are the films (FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN included) that they're talking about.
Don't get me wrong. It's a good enjoyable movie. It's just not a good Bela Lugosi movie.
The Phantom of the Opera
(Claude Rains version)
A Universal Monsters movie in Technicolor? Madness!
I mean, it looks pretty but ... weird.
There's some great costumes. A little too much singing for my tastes. It doesn't really feel very monster-y or horror-ish though. Is Technicolor Extravaganza a genre? Because that's what it feels like.
Claude Rains isn't exactly the best Phantom. I think the problem is that we know too much about the character. We see him before he's the Phantom and he's just some guy. Then we see pretty much his entire career as "the Phantom" and really nobody ever believes he's a phantom. He's just a murderer that's hidden in the Opera house and has the keys to everything. There's no real mystery to the character.
He's got a nice design though.
Not a horrible movie, but just not one I'd recommend if you're looking for monsters.
Son of Dracula
There's been a lot of debate as to whether Lon Chaney played the actual Dracula in this movie or not. While they do refer to him as "Count Dracula" and say Alucard is not his name, to me that says nothing. Of course Dracula would be his name if he was the son of Dracula. Dracula is a last name. Plus I have a hard time seeing this guy as the same character Bela Lugosi played, and most importantly, this movie is called "Son of Dracula." It's not Dracula Returns. It's not Revenge of Dracula. It's not Dracula is Back-ula.
Now as for the movie itself, the plot is that "Count Alucard" has been invited to America by the daughter of a wealthy plantation owner. The day he arrives, the owner dies and leaves the plantation to her. Soon after, she married Alucard, much to the dismay of her actual boyfriend.
Seems she planned on using Alucard for immortality, and then planned to have him finished off so she can live forever with her boyfriend, which is an interesting plot. Things go wrong however when he boyfriend tries to confront Alucard and shoots him multiple times. The bullets go through Alucard and kill his girl instead and he flees and eventually confesses to her murder.
And of course while this is going on, we have people investigating that highly suspect Alucard is a vampire.
The special effects in this movie take it up a notch from what we typically expect. We actually see Lon Chaney turn into mist and back again, as well as transforming into a bat. Even the bat is a lot more advanced the previous rubber bat on a string effect.
There's a lot of people that don't like Lon Chaney's portrayal of the vampire. Admittedly there are a few times where it seems like they wanted him to have a Bela Lugosi style sense of dread and foreboding, and he can't pull that off, but there are also moments when he gets to play things a different way. Lon Chaney was a big guy, and Alucard the vampire often comes off as physically imposing with a monstrous brute strength. For that, he does good, but as somebody that's supposed to be foreign royalty, he seems awfully American.
One of the bigger problems I have is that they seem to play their hand much too quick in allowing people to figure out who or what Alucard really is.
The Invisible Man's Revenge
I've tried to write out a post for this movie a few times. Each time, it turns into a rambling summary of the plot. There's an Invisible Man. He tries to get his revenge.
Our Invisible Man here isn't a megalomaniac or even a scientist. He's just kind of a low rent scuzz. The type you would expect to see in a gangster movie. The movie isn't terrible or anything. It's even got John Carradine in it as the required mad scientist. It's just not very memorable. It does have an invisible dog in it though.
Oh and in case you were ever wondering, to do a complete blood transfusion, draining all the blood from one person and putting it into another apparently only takes a small pump and a length of hose.
The Mummy's Ghost
There isn't a Mummy's Ghost in this movie, but it does have some other notable things going for it.
As a villain, the Mummy isn't given much to do and it's performance isn't exactly standout. Apparently it survived the fire from the last movie, and the High Priest is using it again to try to bring the mummy of the Egyptian Princess back to her tomb in Egypt. That doesn't sound like to terrible a goal, except for all the murdering they're doing.
Also an Egpytian woman is somehow linked to the mummy. When they go to get the body of the princess, it disappears and they comment on how her soul has taken a new form.
What is notable in this movie is that the "heroes" do nothing to defeat the villains, the High Priest is slain by the Mummy for his betrayal, and then he takes the Egyptian Woman who's aging and drying out rapidly and they sink into the swamp together. Yeah, the girl, the main love interest, actually DIES at the end of this one.
Other than that, she probabaly wears some of the most form fitting clothing in the Universal Monsters series. In one scene you can clearly see her nipples poking up. Seems rather unheard of back then.
Also the movie has genuine blood in it. There's a scene where Lon Chaney actually manages to cut himself for real and blood splashes up on his mummy mask.
Honestly, the Mummy movies have always felt somewhat lacking, after the first one with Boris Karloff, but this one has enough of a twist on the tale to make it worthwhile.
House of Frankenstein
In many ways this is both a sequel and a retread of Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. The basic frame work of a gypsy and Larry Talbot seeking Frankenstein to solve his issues remains. However the details have changed and the performances make all the difference.
First thing though, I have to mention, Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Dracula are all in this movie. None of them share any scenes together. Dracula barely has anything to do with the plot and is killed off the first half hour.
Lon Chaney and Boris Karloff (who plays the mad scientist here) play wonderfully off each other. For the first part of the movie, I was thinking how Boris was acting circles around everybody else until Chaney showed up.
The gypsy girl provided a wonderful contrast, her cheerfulness against Chaney's depression brought out the strenghts in both performances. Her love triangle with the wolfman and the hunchback also helped provide a good emotional hook.
On the bad side, I just don't think John Carradine feels like a good Dracula. Nothing in the character really feels foreign. He doesn't even have the physical attributes that Chaney had in Son of Dracula to make the character stand out.
Mummy's Curse.
The last of the classic Lon Chaney mummy movies, and at this point, it feels like they're using suing the same plot over and over again, which is a shame because they start with a rather unique hook.
In the last movie, we watch the main girl age away and die as the mummy carries her into the swamp. That was in Massachusetts. For some reason they're now in Louisianan ad it's 25 years later. While clearing the swamp, the mummy is once again unleashed (with the help of the standard Egyptian cultists). He reall doesn't look like he's spent 25 years buried in a swamp.
The interesting part though, is that the woman from the last movie always wakes up. She crawls out of the mud in an actual cool looking sequence. Then she washes herself off but has no idea who she is anymore. Just that she seems to know a lot about Egyptian history. It's a pretty cool angle actually. Especially since we know that the whole reason the Mummy exists is because of the love of the Egyptian Princess (the one she's reincarnated as.) You'd expect him to react more to that, but he just follows orders as usual, going through the motions of strangling people, carrying a woman away, and laying her on a stone slab. And once AGAIN the Egyptian's plans are screwed over because of some last minute lusting on their part.
The movie ends with the woman dead YET AGAIN and the Mummy buried under some stone. However, this time, everyone who knew the secret to raising the mummy is now dead.
On that note... where do they keep getting the Tana leaves they need to resurrect the mummy? Apparently the plant itself was long extinct in the last movie. Now it's another 25 years later and they still seem to have a lot.
Good point about the Tana Leaves. I also always enjoy lore that involves bodies being preserved while submerged in swamps. I suppose somewhere there's a swamp appropriately constituted to preserve bodies, but most swamps I've ever heard of are primarily good at consumin' or de-stroyin' organic material. That Mummy and the Egyptian Princess are living a blessed eternal life, I tell ya'!
House of Dracula
The movie poster promises 5 monsters. Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstein, "Mad Doctor" and "Hunchback."
The hunchback is a nice sweet girl. Certainly not a monster.
The movie mostly sends it's time with the mad doctor. Dracula and the Wolf Man both show up to his plae looking for a cure to their separate conditions. Sadly, they don't really interact. In fact, none of the big three do. The doctor comes up with some scientific explanations for vampirism and lycanthropy which don't really fit the tone of the rest of the movies, or for that matter, explain why Dracula can turn into a bat, but whatever.
When Larry Talbot learns that the cure is going to take some time, he flips out, jumps off a cliff and tries to kill himself. They later find him in a cave where he's discovered the body of the Frankenstein's Monster, clutching the skeleton of Boris Karloff's character from the last movie.
Oddly enough, while this sort of explains how he got here, both Dracula and the WOlfman were previous killed in their movies and no explanation is made as to how they're back.
For some reason, Dracula decideds part way through the treatment to go back to his old tricks. He contaminates the doctor with some of his own blood during a transfusion then tries to prey on the doctor's other nurse. The one that's not a hunchback.
Since Dracula was STUPID enough to put his coffin in the doctor's lab, and within feet of sunbeams, he's killed pretty easily once he turns on them. And that's only about half way through the movie.
Dracula's blood turns the doctor into a Mr. Hyde like guy at night time and his antics are the ones that bring the required angry mob of villagers down on them.
Not that the mob does anything.
The Wolfman is cured (and his reaction to seeing the moon is actually one of the movies better scenes). The mad doctor strangles his hunchbacked helper and with two minutes left in the movie, the mad doctor decides to revive the Frankenstein Monster. Larry Talbot shoots the doctor dead, and the monster knocks over some lab equipment and dies in a fire.
The end.
The movie has a few brief moments of being decent, but the whole thing really feels like a waste. Dracula's motivations are never really explained. Did he want help or not and if so, why did he change his mind?
Also why didn't they call the mad doctor Jekyll? That one single detail would have made things a lot more forgivable.
She-Wolf of London
There's some nice sets here. Some good performances. Some suitably spooky fog. And, it even has June Lockhart in it. So, you know, current event appeal.
What it doesn't have in it, is a She-wolf.
There are no werewolves or any other kind of monsters at all in this story.
There's just a murderer gaslighting a girl into thinking she's a werewolf.
Completely skippable.
Huh... weird inclusion (though at least the title promises a WolfWoman).
So is NIGHT MONSTER in this set? NIGHT MONSTER actually has a night monster, of sorts, which may be a homicidal invisible man, though the film keeps waffling on exactly what the night monster looks like or doesn't look like or what it is.
Quote from: chainsaw midget on October 05, 2025, 07:09:49 PMOther than that, the Mummy just kind of walks around alot.
😆😂😄😃😀
Quote from: M.10rda on Today at 05:09:59 AMHuh... weird inclusion (though at least the title promises a WolfWoman).
So is NIGHT MONSTER in this set? NIGHT MONSTER actually has a night monster, of sorts, which may be a homicidal invisible man, though the film keeps waffling on exactly what the night monster looks like or doesn't look like or what it is.
Night Monster is NOT in this set.
Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein
Honestly, this one I've been looking forward to. It's on my list of Halloween MUST WACTHs even on regular year, and seeing it in context makes it stand out even more.
Lugosi's back replacing the lackluster Carradine.
We're back to really nicely done creepy swamps and gothic castles, even a suitably impressive mad science lab.
The lackluster bland heroes that are typical of movies from this time have been replaced by the almost always entertaining Abbott and Costello and even Glenn Strange gets to do more as the monster than he has in his last several movies. It's a shame they couldn't get Karloff in there somewhere, but watching Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi together is a treat.
Lugosi's performance as Dracula feels less like a man out of time and more natural. This is a Dracula that's not fresh from his castle into the modern world, but one that has been around a while.
While the mood on this might be a touch sillier than monster fans are accustom to, the monsters themselves are treated as serious (and spooky threats) and other than a very slight bit of slapstick with the Wolfman, never come across as jokes. Plus, unlike the previous monster mash movies, we actually get to see the monsters interact with each other!
The Vincent Price cameo at the end is just a chef's kiss.
Despite the fact that nothing we see in the movie should have killed Dracula, Frankenstein, or the Wolfman, this would be the curtain call for them in the classic age of monsters and it's a wonderful send off.