Chainsawmidget and the Universal Monsters.

[chainsaw midget]

I picked up this the other day. 



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. 

[Rev. Powell]

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.

[chainsaw midget]

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. 

[M.10rda]

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.