Friday, October 28, 2016

The 'Universal Monsters' - A Halloween Retrospective

Image result for Universal Monsters

This Halloween, I decided to go all out for the annual horror-themed post for this site, especially considering that I… sort of forgot to do one last year. For the record, I was planning to do a retrospective on the Halloween franchise because I figured that it was time to tackle a classic horror franchise. But I ultimately didn’t have the time, nor the means for that matter, to go through all the films so I ended up scrapping that post. Seriously, the review that I did for the new Goosebumps film last year was basically the only horror film review that I did during the month of October. So, this year, I decided to do not one but two separate horror-themed posts to compensate for the lack of one last year. Just a few days ago, I published the first of these posts, which was a retrospective on the Purge films, even though they’re not exactly horror films. With that in mind, for the main event, I decided to go back to one of the most iconic periods in the history of the horror genre; the era of Universal’s Monsters. Spanning over three decades beginning in the early 20’s and culminating in the late 50’s, Universal at that time was best known for their numerous monster films centering around various horror icons like Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man. Often starring the likes of Bela Lugosi (‘Dracula’), Boris Karloff (‘Frankenstein’s monster’), and Lon Chaney Jr. (‘The Wolf Man’), these films were huge hits for the studio and many of them still stand as classics of both film and the horror genre.

They’re so famous that Universal is now attempting to do a modern revival of the Monsters franchise by way of a Cinematic Universe, which started with 2014’s Dracula Untold. However, from what I hear, because that film did rather poorly with critics and audiences, it seems as if that one is being excised from the franchise in favor of having the upcoming reboot of The Mummy start things off instead. Will this new monster series work for Universal? For now, only time will tell but today we’ll be looking back at their original monster films. Now for the record, I’m not going to be covering every single ‘monster’ film that Universal made during this time because otherwise I’d be here all day. Instead, I’m primarily going to focus on one franchise; the Frankenstein franchise. The reason why I picked this one to base the whole post around is because it’s easily the biggest of Universal’s monster franchises with eight films in total. However, some of the later films in the franchise were cross-overs that featured other classic Universal monsters. So, with that said, I’ll also be looking at the ‘first films’ that these other characters were in as well as a few extra films based around characters that didn’t appear in the Frankenstein films but are still notable members of Universal’s monster lineup. So, without further ado, grab your pitchforks and your silver bullets and join me as I look back upon many of the classic films that starred the Universal Monsters.

DRACULA (1931)

Image result for Dracula 1931 poster

To start things off, we have the 1931 English-language version of Dracula, based on both Bram Stoker’s 1897 gothic horror novel of the same name and the 1924 stage play by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston. Bela Lugosi stars in the title role and is fantastic. He has great magnetism and the result is a truly hypnotic performance, part of which comes from the fact that a lot of it is based around his gaze. Whenever the film focuses in on him staring at somebody, his eyes are always lit more than the rest of his face. As some have pointed out, it’s sort of reminiscent of old silent films. But whatever way you put it, Lugosi is the biggest selling point of the film. Admittedly this is a case of a film in which the actions of Dracula are primarily implied rather than being shown on-screen. But while some might interpret that as a case where ‘nothing happens’, the film makes up for this by establishing a great sense of atmosphere. From the foggy locales of Transylvania to the old, decrepit homes of Dracula, both in Transylvania and London, to the fact that there’s no background score results in a very atmospheric ‘chiller’. Now there actually was another adaptation of Dracula that was also made by Universal around the same time. This version was a Spanish-language film that was shot at night on the same sets that the English version used during the day. Many consider the Spanish version to be the better of the two films from an artistic perspective. However, due to me not wanting to overstuff this post more than it kind of already is, I decided not to watch/review it for this retrospective. Still, I’d argue that the English version of Dracula is still a pretty iconic entry in the horror genre, if mostly just due to Bela Lugosi’s excellent performance in the title role.

Rating: 4/5

THE MUMMY (1932)

Image result for The Mummy 1932 poster

When it comes to The Mummy and Universal Studios, nowadays most people are more familiar with the trilogy of action films starring Brendan Fraser that ran from 1999 to 2008. And from the looks of it, the new adaptation of The Mummy that is set to come out next year starring Tom Cruise will also primarily be an action film. However, when it comes to the first Universal Mummy film all the way back in 1932, it’s more in line with the studio’s horror films of the time. Like Dracula, this is one of those films that’s more dialogue heavy than it is about monster action though this time admittedly it’s more of an issue. However, also like with Dracula (in fact this has quite a lot in common with that film when you start to think about it), the key selling point of the film is its lead star. Boris Karloff took on the second major monster role of his career as the Egyptian priest Imhotep, who is revived by members of an archaeological expedition in 1921, masquerades as an Egyptian named Ardath Bay a decade later, and attempts to resurrect his lover, princess Ankh-es-en-amon. Obviously, Karloff would become known more for his role as Frankenstein but he does do a great job in the role of Imhotep. Like Lugosi as Dracula, there’s a hypnotic magnetism to his performance and the image of his wrinkled face staring directly into the camera is quite haunting. As I noted before, this one’s a rather slow burn but I will say that the ending is quite a memorable one and does sort of make up for some of the film’s duller moments beforehand. It’s quite interesting to watch this film after seeing the 1999 Mummy film multiple times over the years and seeing some of the references that the newer film made despite being a totally different kind of film. But as for the original Mummy, I can’t say that this is one of the best Universal Monster films but it’s still worth checking out for those wanting to see an old-school monster flick.  

Rating: 3/5

THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)

Image result for the invisible man 1933 poster

Two years after directing the original Frankenstein, director James Whale took on a different ‘monster’ story with The Invisible Man. It is based on the 1897 novel of the same name by H.G. Wells about a scientist who ends up turning invisible following a series of tests involving an obscure drug, which end up turning him insane. And overall I must say that this is one of my favorite entries in Universal’s line of monster films. Because the main character Jack Griffin spends most of the film invisible, there’s a lot of special effects work in this film and it is quite impressive for the time. Now I’ll admit that from a modern perspective, this film kind of comes off more as a ‘comedy’ than it does a ‘horror’ film, which I say only because some parts of it are quite over the top. And yet… that ends up being the reason why this film is so damn fun to watch. A lot of it is also thanks to Claude Rains’ terrific and highly enthusiastic performance in the title role. His turn as Jack Griffin constantly blurs the line between lunacy and charisma. Case in point, the scene where he chases after a woman wearing only a pair of slacks that he took from a police officer and chanting “Here we go gathering nuts in May, nuts in May, nuts in May, here we go gathering nuts in May on a cold and frosty morning!” Thanks to scenes like that as well as the terrific special effects and outstanding performance by Claude Rains, the original Invisible Man stands as one of the most highly entertaining of Universal’s monster films. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that unlike some of these other films, it does keep its focus on the title character throughout instead of focusing more on the side characters. Either way, the film’s great.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE WOLF MAN (1941)

Image result for the wolf man 1941 poster

Some of the earliest installments of the Universal Monsters series starred Lon Chaney, who was also known as ‘The Man of a Thousand Faces’ due to his skills in makeup design. This included films like Universal’s 1923 adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and 1925’s pre-musical era The Phantom of the Opera. His son, Lon Chaney Jr., soon continued his father’s legacy by taking on a major makeup-heavy role of his own in The Wolf Man. This 1941 film is a pretty star-studded film as it stars not only Lon Chaney Jr. in the role of Larry Talbot, a man who becomes a werewolf after he’s bitten by another man-turned-werewolf, but two other major stars of Universal Monster films. Claude Rains (‘The Invisible Man’) plays Larry’s father Sir John while Bela Lugosi (‘Dracula’) plays a gypsy named Bela who is the man who turned into a werewolf and bit Larry. Like Dracula and The Mummy, this is another one of those ‘slow burn’ horror films but ultimately I feel that this film is the best of the three when it comes to pacing. The build-up to the first scene of Larry in his ‘wolf’ form is quite nice and this film benefits from some strong atmosphere, especially in scenes set at night in foggy forests. Lon Chaney Jr. does an excellent job in the title role, making Larry a sympathetic protagonist amidst the ‘curse’ that befalls him. The makeup effects for his ‘wolf form’ are excellent but it’s also neat how, prior to the first transformation but after he got bitten by Bela, the film puts his psyche into question and how the curse of the werewolf is starting to affect him. All in all, this is another one of Universal’s best monster films thanks to a solid cast and great atmosphere.
Rating: 4.5/5

AND NOW, THE MAIN EVENT… THE FRANKENSTEIN FRANCHISE

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

Image result for frankenstein 1931 poster

In 1931, just 9 months after the release of Universal’s other big monster film of the year, Dracula, director James Whale brought a different famous horror novel to life on the big-screen with Frankenstein, based on the 1818 novel of the same name by Mary Shelley. It’s the story about a scientist named Henry Frankenstein (he’s named Victor in the novel but that name was given to the character’s best friend in the film, who ironically was named Henry in the novel) as he builds a body out of the remains of the dead and brings it to life with electricity. However, the monster soon proves to be a problem as it begins to terrorize the town, all because his hunchback assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye, who was fantastic as Renfield in Dracula) brought him an ‘abnormal’ brain. Colin Clive stars in the lead role of Henry Frankenstein and does an excellent job as he makes the character a sympathetic protagonist that is doing something crazy while also staying fully committed to the part. As for his monster, Boris Karloff stars in what is easily the definitive role of his career. He too is excellent in what is a very physical performance with no dialogue. The build-up to the monster’s first on-screen appearance is solid and like many of these Universal Monster films, the film establishes a solid atmosphere throughout. It all builds up to a climactic finale set atop a burning windmill. In short, while the film is obviously dated by today’s standards, it’s still a solid old-school chiller complete with great lead performances, solid set design, and a well-handled atmosphere.

Rating: 4/5

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

Image result for bride of frankenstein 1935 poster

Although initially hesitant to do it at first, James Whale returned to direct a sequel to the original Frankenstein in 1935 with The Bride of Frankenstein, continuing the story of Dr. Henry Frankenstein and his monstrous creation as the former is confronted by a mad scientist named Dr. Pretorius, who happens to be Frankenstein’s former mentor, who coerces Frankenstein into creating ‘a mate’ for the monster. Colin Clive returns as Frankenstein and is excellent once again, as it’s made clear that Frankenstein has changed since the whole incident with the monster. Speaking of the monster, Boris Karloff is also great once again and the film sees the monster continuing to develop aka ‘become more human’, namely the fact that he gains the ability to talk. But a major scene-stealer is Ernest Thesiger in the role of Pretorius, a completely mad but entertainingly eccentric scientist. While the continuity between films is a little off in some places (e.g. the recasting of Frankenstein’s wife Elizabeth from Mae Clarke to Valerie Hobson), this very much feels like a sequel that ups the scale in every way, from the set design, which is just as great as it was in the previous film, to the visual effects, which are quite impressive for the time (e.g. Pretorius’ ‘creations’ of miniature people). But what about the title character, ‘the Bride’, played by Elsa Lanchester who also plays Mary Shelley, the real-life author of Frankenstein, in a prologue intended to bridge the two films? Well, believe it or not, Lanchester only appears as the Bride in the final five minutes of the film. But in her brief screen-time, she did manage to turn the Bride into another horror icon. In short, The Bride of Frankenstein is an excellent sequel that many even consider to be better than the original. Do I concur with that notion? I think I do because this is a case of a sequel that upped the ante in every possible way to great results.

Rating: 4.5/5

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939)

Image result for son of frankenstein poster

After the success of a double-feature re-release of Dracula and Frankenstein in 1938, Universal decided to continue making monster films, with Son of Frankenstein kick-starting this new era of revitalization. However, being the third installment of the series and without the direction of James Whale or featuring the character of Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive passed away in 1937, for the record), it seems as if this might be an inferior follow-up. However, it turns out to be a solid sequel that’s somewhat on par with its two predecessors. The biggest strength of the film is its lead trio of characters. Basil Rathbone of Sherlock Holmes fame stars as Dr. Frankenstein’s son Wolf. He proves to be very likable but also engaging in his efforts to redeem his family’s name following the incidents involving his father’s monster. Bela Lugosi takes on another Universal Monster film role as the mysterious man named Ygor who uses the monster to enact revenge upon the townspeople who had him hanged years earlier. Simply put, Lugosi’s performance is on par with his turn as Dracula. Finally, there’s Lionel Atwill (who would go on to star in the next four Frankenstein films as well) as Inspector Krogh, who keeps an eye on the Frankenstein family, protecting them from angry villagers, but also has a bit of distrustful feelings towards them because of an incident in his childhood when the monster ripped off his arm. The moral conflicts that emerge between these three are easily one of the best parts of the entire film.

But what about the monster, once again played by Boris Karloff in what would be his last major turn in the role in a Universal Monster film? Well, unfortunately the monster is relegated to a side character in this film and it also reverts to not having him speak after he learned to in Bride. Still, Karloff does a good job in the role. Really, the only major issue with this film is its length. Whereas all the other films in this retrospective are around 65-70 minutes each, this was the longest of the franchise at one hour and forty minutes. Thus, the pacing is a lot more leisurely whereas the other films are much brisker due to their shorter runtime. It’s not entirely a ‘bad thing’, as it does allow for more character development in regards to the main characters, but it could’ve used a few trims here and there. Plus, despite being credited as a sequel to the previous two films, eagle-eyed viewers are surely going to note a whole bunch of continuity errors here and there (and trust me, it only gets worse from here). But overall, Son of Frankenstein is a solid sequel thanks to the strong performances from its three lead actors (plus Karloff as the monster, of course), excellent set design that showcases the bigger budget that the film had compared to its predecessors and kind of reminds you of a Tim Burton film, and arguably some of the best character development of any Universal monster film.

Rating: 4/5

THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

Image result for ghost of frankenstein poster

Just like how Bride of Frankenstein is the primary sequel to the original Frankenstein, The Ghost of Frankenstein is the primary sequel to Son of Frankenstein. Again, there are some continuity errors here and there (e.g. the monster apparently gets stronger when struck by lightning, even though in the last film it was lightning that sent him into a coma for the first third of it) but overall it does continue the story that has been building through these first four films. It even brings back the character of Dr. Henry Frankenstein, who appears as a ghost to his son, and the film’s main character, Ludwig. Albeit here he is not played by Colin Clive but instead Cedric Hardwicke who also plays Ludwig. Bela Lugosi returns as Ygor and is great once again. The plot even ends up resulting in his brain being put into the monster’s, which is a freaky moment once the monster starts speaking in his voice. Lon Chaney Jr. steps into the role of the monster, replacing Boris Karloff. Unfortunately, Chaney doesn’t get much to work with here to the point where the monster doesn’t even say a word until Ygor’s brain is put into him. So, in short, The Ghost of Frankenstein is easily the weakest of the original four Frankenstein films. There are some things about it that do make it worth checking out. These include Bela Lugosi as Ygor, who’s still a great bad guy, a solid performance by Cedric Hardwicke in the lead role, and the usual solid set design of these films. But overall, it’s just ‘ok’ at best.

Rating: 3/5

FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943)

Image result for frankenstein meets the wolfman poster

Now Universal was starting to release their big monster films on an annual basis and in 1943, they gave us the first big ‘monster crossover’ event film in the form of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Basically, it’s primarily a sequel to The Wolf Man as Larry Talbot is brought back to life following his death in that film and now seeks another way to end his eternal life. In doing so, he comes across Frankenstein’s monster, who in this film is played by none other than Bela Lugosi. Interestingly, Lugosi was originally considered to play the part all the way back in 1931 in the original Frankenstein but he turned it down, presumably due to him claiming that there wasn’t much to the role. But he would get his chance more than a decade later and overall he does a decent enough job in the role. Like Karloff in Son, he’s limited by the fact that the monster doesn’t speak. Though with that said, initially the monster was intended to speak but this was cut due to test audiences finding it awkward; which is ironic considering that Lugosi did voice the monster when his character Ygor ‘became’ the monster in Ghost. But if there’s anything that he does to leave a lasting impression, it’s the fact that it was him, not Boris Karloff, who originated the iconic character trait of having the monster’s arms extended outwards while walking. Which, for the record, was a side effect of the blindness that the monster was affected with at the end of Ghost but because of the lack of dialogue for him, is never mentioned here. Regardless, this all results in an enjoyable monster flick, right down to the out-of-nowhere musical number in the middle of the film. And it all culminates in an entertaining fight between the Wolf Man and the monster. Again, there’s plenty of plot holes and continuity errors but overall it’s a solid entry in the Universal Monsters canon that would set the standard for future ‘monster crossover’ films.

Rating: 3.5/5

HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944)

Image result for house of frankenstein poster

Universal followed up the ‘Frankenstein-Wolf Man’ crossover with another one the following year, House of Frankenstein. This one featured not only Frankenstein and the Wolf Man but also Dracula. But don’t get your hopes up too high because none of them share any real screen-time together. This is more of an ‘episodic’ story. Dracula appears in the beginning of the film but is then killed off about 10-15 minutes later. Larry Talbot doesn’t appear until halfway in and Frankenstein’s monster stays comatose until the final 10 minutes of the film. But despite this, the story is fairly engaging as it follows a scientist named Dr. Niemann, played by Boris Karloff in the first Frankenstein film that he’s appeared in for nearly a decade, as he interacts with all the monsters and uses them to enact revenge upon those who wronged him in the past. Even though none of the monsters appear together at any point, all the monster action is solid. John Carradine does a decent, albeit not as memorable as Bela Lugosi’s, turn in the role of Dracula and Lon Chaney Jr. is once again solid as the sympathetic Larry. J. Carrol Naish is also quite sympathetic in the role of Dr. Niemann’s hunchback assistant Daniel, who begs his master to give him a new body and gets caught in a love triangle between himself, Larry, and a gypsy girl named Ilonka. This time, the monster is played by Glenn Strange, who would go on to play the role in the following two films. He’s okay but as noted earlier, he doesn’t do anything until the finale. All in all, the film does boast a solid cast all around and while there are STILL plenty of inconsistences and plot holes here and there, House of Frankenstein is a pretty solid monster flick.

Rating: 3.5/5

HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945)

Image result for house of dracula poster

House of Dracula… is basically a rehash of House of Frankenstein. It’s about a scientist who encounters the three big Universal Monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man. Heck, it’s even directed by the same guy, Erle C. Kenton, produced by the same guy, Paul Malvern, and written by the same guy, Edward T. Lowe Jr. That should give you an idea of how shameless of a ‘remake’ this is and yeah… it shows. This is easily the weakest entry of the Frankenstein franchise. Whereas the other films had plenty of monster action to make up for their various flaws, this film doesn’t have that same benefit. Oh, sure, it has the monsters but it does little with them to the point where they give each of them an anti-climactic send-off. Dracula plays a big part in the opening but is then killed off, quite anti-climactically, at the halfway mark. Larry Talbot returns with the same old ‘trying to end his suffering’ problem and while he is finally cured of his ‘Wolf Man’ ‘disease’, it’s a mixed bag of a finale for him. It’s satisfying to see Larry finally get a happy ending after all he’s been through but it’s still a lackluster finale for a classic monster. And as for Frankenstein’s monster… well, once again he’s comatose on an operating table until the final 10 minutes. Did they just not have much faith in Glenn Strange’s version of the character? The ‘main’ monster of the film is the scientist, Dr. Edelmann, who becomes a monster himself after Dracula orchestrates a transfusion of his blood into the doctor. While he does have a few creepy scenes after his ‘transformation’, it still comes at the expense of major screen-time for the actual monsters. In short, House of Dracula does have its moments but it’s a shameless re-do of the previous film that severely limits the roles of its main stars.

Rating: 1.5/5

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948)

Image result for abbott and costello meet frankenstein poster

And finally, we end on a film that, at first glance, some might not initially think as being part of the ‘Universal Monsters’ franchise. But, in recent home media releases, it has been included in the ‘Legacy Collections’ for Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man so it does technically count. This is Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, starring the legendary comic duo of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, who were well-known for their iconic ‘Who’s on First’ routine. In this film, they star as Chick and Wilbur, respectively, a pair of baggage clerks who end up running into Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein’s monster. It’s quite hilarious to see these two interact with the monster stars, whose performances are more in tone with the usual monster films of the time. This is perhaps best exemplified whenever Abbott and Costello are in a scene with Lon Chaney Jr and the two of them don’t believe him when he says he transforms into a wolf. Chaney, of course, reprises his role as Larry Talbot as does Glenn Strange as the Frankenstein monster. As for Dracula, Bela Lugosi returned to the role that he made famous for the first (and ultimately last time on the big screen) time in 17 years and is great once again, even when playing off a pair of knucklehead comedians. As for the humor, this film has plenty of funny quips and sight gags, all thanks to the great camaraderie of its two main stars. For fans of Abbott and Costello and/or the Universal Monsters, I have the feeling that you’re going to love this one as it utilizes both of its ‘properties’ quite well, resulting in a highly entertaining monster-themed comedy.

Rating: 4/5


That concludes this retrospective on some of the classic Universal Monsters films. Thanks for following along with me on this journey through one of the most famous eras in the history of the horror genre and Happy Halloween!

No comments:

Post a Comment