Top 10 WORST Films of 2017: Part 1 (#10-6)

Well, folks, we’re nearing the end of 2017, and in the world of film, that means one thing. Yes, the time has come to look back upon the past year and list both our favorite and least favorite films from 2017. But while most critics have already posted their Top 10 Best Films of the Year lists (some of whom even did it before they saw a certain film set in a galaxy far, far away… the nerve…), I do things a little differently here on Rhode Island Movie Corner. You see, most critics tend to release their ‘Best of the Year’ lists first before their ‘Worst of the Year’ lists. As such, the ‘Worst of’ lists always end up attracting more attention. Why? Well, that’s because here on the internet, people love to hear others rag on films a lot more than when they praise them. But as for me, I do my ‘Worst of the Year’ list first simply because I like to end the year on a good note instead of a bad one. With that in mind, don’t expect a lot of anger in these next two posts because, to be perfectly frank, I rarely get that angry at bad films nowadays. To be clear, however, this doesn’t mean that I’ll be going soft on any of the films that I’m about to discuss. And so, without further ado, the time has come for me to list my picks for the Top 10 WORST films of 2017. This is the first half of a two-part series, and today I’ll be listing films #10-6. Also, it’s worth noting that while these two posts may contain some major spoilers from the following films, I won’t be posting any Spoiler Warnings because, simply put, these aren’t films that I can recommend in any capacity.

Before we get started, however, I have one Dishonorable Mention

DISHONORABLE MENTION – CHiPS

CHiPS was a buddy cop TV series that aired on NBC from 1977 to 1983. Running for a span of 139 episodes over the course of 6 seasons (plus a made-for-television film in 1998, CHiPS ‘99), the show followed the adventures of Jon Baker (Larry Wilcox) and Francis Llewellyn Poncherello AKA Ponch (Erik Estrada), a pair of officers who worked for the California Highway Patrol. This year, the classic series was revitalized for the big-screen by writer/director Dax Shepard, who also starred in the film as Baker alongside Michael Pena as Ponch. And at the very least, the two of them do have solid chemistry when it comes to their comedic banter… it’s a shame, then, that the film boasts a rather mediocre hit-miss ratio when it comes to its humor. Granted, I don’t think that it’s as bad as another film from this year that was based off a retro TV series (which, SPOILERS, will be appearing later on in this list), but that doesn’t mean that it’s that good either. To his credit, Shepard isn’t a bad director when it comes to action sequences, as this film does boast some decent car chases; he is a noted car enthusiast after all. However, it’s clear that he’s much better off working with other writers because as is, the film is just a mediocre adaptation of an old TV series that tries a bit too hard to be a raunchy R-rated comedy. Now, for the record, I’ve never watched the original series before, but I’m pretty sure that its humor was far tamer by comparison. And on that note, believe me when I say that I’ve seen quite a lot of fans of the show be quite furious about this film due to all of the changes that it made to its source material. Heck, even my uncle was one of those people.

And now it’s time to move on to the main list… and boy, are we starting things off on a controversial note with the worst superhero film that came out of what has otherwise been one of the genre’s greatest years.

10. JUSTICE LEAGUE

I say that this is a controversial stance because, obviously, this film does have its loyal fans. But I’m sorry DCEU fans, there’s no mincing words here… they seriously dropped the ball on this one. With that said, however, let me assure you, folks, that this wasn’t like the time when I was quite hesitant about Batman v. Superman a few years prior to its release when it started to add in more characters to try and build things up to where we are now. Despite the general skepticism that was surrounding it due to the critical disdain directed towards the series’ past installments, I was genuinely rooting for this film to succeed. When I was walking out of the theater, my initial rating for this film was somewhere around 3.5/5. Sadly, though, as I was writing my review, I slowly started to realize that this rating was beginning to drop rapidly. And thus, here we are now with Justice League, hands down one of the most disappointing superhero films to come out in recent memory. The main reason why is simple… it is basically the DC equivalent of Fan4stic. Now, for the record, don’t misconstrue this as me saying that it’s as bad as Fan4stic because it really isn’t. I mean, let’s be honest folks, 99.9% of all superhero films released since 2008 are better than Fan4stic. With that said, though, both films are clearly the result of a studio trying to salvage a reportedly ‘unwatchable’ first cut of their big blockbuster release only to make things even worse because of all the boneheaded alterations that they made.

As many of you know, this was primarily the result of when director Zack Snyder was forced to step away from the film’s post-production cycle back in May after his daughter Autumn committed suicide. Thus, Joss Whedon (who, of course, is no stranger to the genre having written and directed the first two Avengers films) was brought in to supervise reshoots. However, despite numerous claims from the studio that Whedon was making a dedicated effort to match Snyder’s original directorial vision, you can clearly tell what parts of the film were handled by Whedon. This results in some severely awkward tonal shifts that try to balance humor with the more serious aspects of the plot. And while I do appreciate the effort that was made to make the film more light-hearted compared to Snyder’s previous DCEU films, most of the humor in this film is, for lack of a better word… awful. Simply put, it just isn’t as well-handled as it is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe films (and yes, I’m saying this while being fully aware of the fact that quite a lot of people have been highly critical of the MCU films for their humor). Really, if you ask me, the only two great things to come out of this film are A.) That all of the main leads do solid jobs in their respective roles while working quite well off each other and B.) Henry Cavill was finally allowed to ‘act’ like Superman even with all the shoddy CG work that was done to hide the mustache that he had grown prior to reshoots. Aside from them, however, none of the DCEU’s major supporting characters (e.g. Amy Adams’ Lois Lane and Connie Nielsen’s Queen Hippolyta) get any decent material to work with and the main villain Steppenwolf is one of the weakest villains in the history of the genre.

To be clear, though, this is not primarily Whedon’s fault. At the moment, DCEU fanboys are currently burning Whedon an effigy for all of the changes that he made to the film; and yet, may I remind you that Whedon was forced to do all of this in less than half a year! Seriously, DCEU fanboys, you try and rework a major tent-pole release in that timeframe… ain’t that easy. And, of course, it wasn’t Zack Snyder’s fault because he was waylaid by a devastating personal tragedy. In short, it was Warner Bros. who screwed up with this one by rushing it so that it could be released this year. Clearly, they should’ve pushed it back to 2018 once Snyder had to leave; and yeah, I’m well-aware that 2018 is already heavily packed when it comes to the superhero genre. Marvel’s got the next Avengers as well as Black Panther and Ant-Man and the Wasp, Fox has sequels to both X-Men and Deadpool along with The New Mutants, Sony has its Spider-Man spinoff Venom (plus an animated Spider-Man film), and DC will have Aquaman’s solo film. But even with that in mind… it still would’ve frigging helped. I mean, say what you will about Batman v Superman but when that film had to be pushed back from its original 2015 release date, it got pushed back! And as for Snyder… well, I’d hate to say it but I think that the time has come for him to step down from directing DCEU films. I’m not saying this out of spite, for the record; it’s just that, at this point, it’s clear that he’s not being given the respect from the studio that he deserves. He had to take out a whole half-hour of footage from Batman v. Superman because ‘he didn’t have James Cameron-level clout’, resulting in the film’s inferior theatrical cut, and now we have this whole debacle. And unlike BvS, it seems highly doubtful that we’ll ever see a version of this film that was more in line with Snyder’s original vision.

And if that wasn’t enough, this film is just further proof of how the DC Extended Universe’s hardcore fans make up one of the most toxic fan-bases in all of pop culture. Many of you are no doubt aware of their past incidents, namely when they tried to shut down Rotten Tomatoes after Suicide Squad was savaged by critics; needless to say, their antics have only continued since this film was released. They’ve basically become the successors to Christopher Nolan’s hardcore fans. In other words, they are completely unwavering when it comes to viewing the DCEU films as perfect masterpieces (even when they’re clearly not) while vehemently disagreeing with anyone who doesn’t think highly of these films. Now, granted, I know that I’m certainly one to talk given how big of a fan I am of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But, at the risk of starting another fanboy war… there is a reason why Marvel Studios hasn’t hit this kind of low point yet with their film output. While they are under the Disney banner, Disney has never interfered with their film productions in the way that Warner Bros. did with Justice League. And even though there are new MCU films every year, none of them ever feel rushed. Whereas this film came out just one year after BvS, the first DCEU film to officially start establishing its franchise’s interconnectivity, the MCU didn’t get into The Avengers until five years into its run. And after that, there has always been a three-year gap between Avengers films. Most importantly, though, is the fact that while I will openly admit that I often give glowing reviews to MCU films, that doesn’t mean that I view them all as masterpieces. Still, it really is saying something when the first two-minute trailer for Avengers: Infinity War is far superior to this two-hour mess of a film.

We have another fairly disappointing release at the Number 9 spot. It’s a film that just couldn’t live up to its potential despite the involvement of one of my favorite filmmakers.

9. THE BELKO EXPERIMENT

The Belko Experiment is the brainchild of Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn, who wrote and produced it. Obviously, he didn’t direct it given his commitment to Marvel so instead, it was directed by Greg McLean. And really… this probably would’ve worked a lot better if Gunn had directed it. Under McLean’s direction, the film ends up feeling rather generic, which is a shame because it did have an interesting premise. The plot revolves around the employees of the titular Belko Industries, who find themselves trapped within their office building by a mysterious figure who demands that they kill several of their employees or else run the risk of being randomly executed by the explosives contained within the tracking devices that they’ve been implanted with. This could’ve led to an entertaining Battle Royale/Hunger Games-ish squabble in which the employees begin to turn on one another in order to survive; not to mention all the fun ways in which they could’ve used their office supplies to kill each other. However, this premise ends up being somewhat squandered as most of the deaths in this film occur by way of those in charge of the ‘experiment’ detonating the implants. And while the film’s ensemble cast is quite stacked with the likes of John Gallagher Jr, Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, Michael Rooker, and Sean Gunn (the film’s biggest standout as the building’s pot-smoking cafeteria worker Marty), the large amount of characters in this film get little to no character development. Granted, you could say that this isn’t really something that you need in a film like this, but that also means that you don’t care about any of these characters in the slightest. And thus, while The Belko Experiment is by no means the worst film of this year, like Justice League it could’ve been a heck of a lot better given all of the talent that was involved.

At Number 8, we have the next installment of a series that has previously appeared on this site’s annual ‘Worst of’ list.

8. THE NUT JOB 2: NUTTY BY NATURE

In January 2014, an animated film titled The Nut Job was released in theaters. Developed in part by a Korean animation company and based off a 2005 short titled Surly Squirrel made by its director, former Disney/Pixar animator Peter Lepeniotis, it revolved around a squirrel named Surly who tries to raid a nut store in order to find him and his friends enough food to last through the winter. For an animated film released in January, The Nut Job did decently at the box-office; however, that didn’t translate to the film’s critical reception as it was straight-up savaged by most critics. And to be perfectly frank… they weren’t wrong in that regard. I mean, at its worst, it was just a mediocre animated film with a bland and often mean-spirited narrative, an odd fascination for nut-based innuendos, and repeated uses of the song ‘Gangnam Style’ (remember that viral video from 2012?). Ultimately, though, the one thing that truly killed the film was that it featured one of the most unlikable protagonists ever seen in an animated film. Despite being voiced by the talented Will Arnett, Surly the Squirrel was an inconsiderate jerk who always cared more about himself than his friends and family. Because of this terrible character, the film proved to be quite the chore to sit through, hence why it ended up taking the #6 spot in the ‘Worst of the Year’ list that I did for that year. And yet, like I said before, it did do well enough at the box-office to give its distributors enough confidence to fast-track a sequel in the form of this year’s The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature.

Now, surprisingly, this film proved to be a lot more tolerable compared to its predecessor. While I wouldn’t say that the film fully succeeds at it, the character of Surly isn’t as unlikable as he was in the first film. With that said, though, all of the film’s characters are still flat and one-note, and that’s even after the film’s truly random attempt at trying to have an emotional moment by delving into the origins of Surly’s friendship with his mute rat sidekick Buddy. As for the plot, it’s a lot more streamlined than it was in the first film... meaning that this film is incredibly predictable as it sees Surly and company trying to save their home from a greedy mayor who plans to turn it into an amusement park. And yes, despite the finale being set within an amusement park that proceeds to get completely destroyed by the end of it, The Nut Job 2 ends up being one of the most forgettable animated films in recent memory. Technically, it’s better than the first film due to it not being as mean-spirited, but obviously, that isn’t saying much. Really, the only good thing that I can say about this film is the fact that, at the very least, Will Arnett could fall back on his role as LEGO Batman in far superior animated films that came out during the same years as these Nut Job films. Back in 2014, we were treated to The LEGO Movie just one month after the release of the original Nut Job. And as for this year’s sequel, we already got The LEGO Batman Movie back in February. So… there’s that, at least…

The word ‘disappointing’ is going to be a key descriptor when it comes to a lot of the films that will be appearing on this list. That includes my Number 7 pick, which was arguably the most disappointing release of the summer…

7. THE MUMMY

When it comes to Universal’s Mummy films, most of my generation is primarily familiar with the trilogy of films starring Brendan Fraser that ran from 1999 to 2008. Sure, they were mostly just mindless action-adventure re-imaginings of old-school horror films from the 30’s but at the very least, they were still decently entertaining popcorn flicks (The first two, at least; the third… not so much…). But now we cut to 2017, where Universal is ready to revitalize their most famous horror franchises. How so, you ask? Why by going the Marvel route and creating its own Cinematic Universe. And while I know that some may have groaned at the fact that another attempt at a Marvel-esque Cinematic Universe was being made, it at least made sense to attempt to base it on the Universal Monsters franchises given how Universal has technically been doing this for years. Just look at films like 1943’s Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and 1944’s House of Frankenstein; as weird as it may sound, the Universal Monsters were basically the original Cinematic Universe. And while I personally don’t have a lot of experience with the original Universal Monsters franchises, the fact that this new Mummy film would be starring one of the film industry’s top action stars, Tom Cruise, under the direction of Alex Kurtzman, co-writer of the 2009 Star Trek reboot, at least made me interested in seeing how it would turn out. However, if there’s one thing that a Tom Cruise Mummy film shouldn’t be, that would be ‘boring’… sadly, that is exactly what this film is. Overall, it attempts to be a mix between the more atmospheric horror narrative of the original 1932 Mummy film starring Boris Karloff and the more action-oriented escapades of the 1999 remake and its sequels. But while Kurtzman does do a decent job with the action sequences, the film drags for the most part due to its sluggish pacing.

And when it comes to the film’s efforts to establish its own cinematic universe (designated as the ‘Dark Universe’), that just ends up bringing along even more problems. Somehow, the film makes so much of an effort to establish this new cinematic universe and yet makes little to no progress in actually doing so, and in the process, this ends up taking greater precedence over the main plot. In other words, this film is a ‘Dark Universe’ film first and a Mummy film second. Because of this, none of the film’s characters get any sort of decent character development and the main antagonist, Princess Ahmanet, ends up being a mediocre threat, effectively stranding a cast that includes the likes of Cruise, Russell Crowe (the most engaging member of the cast as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde), and Sofia Boutella (Ahmanet) with subpar material. By comparison, the first MCU film, Iron Man, was more focused on establishing its titular main character, and it didn’t really get into anything regarding the franchise’s future until the ‘I’m here to talk about the Avengers Initiative’ post-credits scene. This is one of the primary reasons why the Marvel Cinematic Universe has managed to flourish in the way that it did unlike other recent attempts at a Cinematic Universe; it established its characters first before putting them all together in a single film (looking at you, DCEU). And because this new reboot of The Mummy fails to follow Iron Man’s example, it was unable to kick off its prospective franchise on a good note.

To make matters worse, now it seems unlikely that this franchise will even be continuing at all because of how bad this film did with critics and audiences (though, contrary to what several reports have stated, it doesn’t feel like the film was that big of a commercial flop with over $409 million grossed at the box-office). It was supposed to be followed up by a remake of Bride of Frankenstein that was going to be directed by Bill Condon. However, that film ended up getting ‘postponed’ back in October so that more time could be spent on the script, and it’s currently unclear at the moment if the film will be made at all. It’s a shame, really, because I was genuinely optimistic about its chances of redeeming the franchise. After all, Condon is certainly no stranger to the material having directed the 1998 biopic Gods and Monsters about James Whale, director of the original Bride of Frankenstein. But alas, it seems as if the ‘Dark Universe’ has ended before it even truly began. Not too long after Bride’s postponement, Kurtzman and producer Chris Morgan decided to step away from the franchise in order to move onto other projects. It’s a sad development, for sure, because like I said before, unlike a few other proposed Cinematic Universes, a Cinematic Universe featuring the Universal Monsters did have the potential to succeed given the characters’ previous crossovers with one another. Unfortunately, though, it ultimately crashed and burned thanks to the mediocre re-imagining that was this year’s The Mummy. Suffice it to say, you’re much better off with the Brendan Fraser Mummy films.

Don’t act like you didn’t see this one coming…

6. THE EMOJI MOVIE

Yeah… some of you probably guessed that this film would end up on this list. Ever since it was first announced, The Emoji Movie immediately established itself as one of the most despised films in recent memory. And before I go any further, let me answer the one question that many of you no doubt have right now… yes, they made a film based on the colorful symbols that many of us use on our phones to send text messages, emails, etc. Whereas most people lamented the arrival of this film as a sign of Hollywood truly scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to new ideas, I basically just ignored this film for the most part even after the trailers started to come out. Eventually, the film came out and it subsequently became one of the worst-reviewed films of the year. And after finally watching it for myself… well, yes, I will agree that it isn’t much to talk about. It’s basically just a knockoff of Inside Out as both films focus around characters that live inside something owned by a human; instead of the characters residing inside the person’s brain, this film focuses on the emoji’s who reside inside a young teenager’s phone. The main character Gene, a ‘Meh’ emoji who finds that he’s capable of expressing multiple emotions beyond ‘meh’, then proceeds to get into some major trouble which starts to have a negative effect on his owner’s life to the point where the world of the phone is put into jeopardy. I mean, the animation isn’t terrible… if anything, it’s colorful and there aren’t really any other options when it comes to making these emoji’s sentient beings. Plus, I can even sympathize with how the director connected with this story of an emoji who breaks from the norms of society because he himself is gay. Still, the story is woefully generic as are all of its characters.

…and that’s all that I’m going to say about this film. A very short review, wouldn’t you say? Well, that’s because I feel that this film isn’t worth getting too upset about. The same can’t be said for how the internet reacted to it, however, as this is one of the prime examples in which the film fan community got incredibly worked up over a film that honestly wasn’t worth all the hubbub. I mean, really, this film’s abysmal 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes should’ve been a clear-cut sign for most people to just ignore it. And you know what? That is exactly what I did on its opening weekend; I went to go see the film Atomic Blonde instead and, suffice it to say, it was a far better film by comparison. And that’s another thing… I swear that at times, it was almost as if the internet acted like this was the only film that was out at the time. Obviously, that wasn’t even remotely true, which then begs this question… why didn’t people just go to see other films instead? Clearly, they would’ve gotten a heck of a lot more out of films like Wonder Woman, Dunkirk, or Baby Driver (even though those films had already been out for a few weeks by the time that this came out) instead of this. And heck, despite this sole hiccup in their lineup, Sony’s film division actually had a decent 2017 thanks to the trio of hits that were Baby Driver, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. Thus, that’s The Emoji Movie in a nutshell for me; the reason why it’s only at the #6 spot on this list is simple. When it comes to 2017 both in and out of the world of film… quite frankly, I’ve seen worse.  

And that’s the end of Part 1 of my Top 10 Worst Films of 2017 list. Thanks for following along and be sure to check back in the next few days for Part 2, in which I’ll be listing my picks for the Top 5 worst films from this past year. What dreaded film will land the #1 spot? Stay tuned…

The Mummy (2017) review

From 1923 to 1960, Universal Studios was best known for their wide variety of monster films, featuring iconic characters like Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man, just to name a few. Many of them were huge critical and commercial hits in their time and, thus, still stand as some of the greatest films in the horror genre. Since then, these classic monsters have gone through various re-imaginings over the years, though usually not through Universal. Their only credited ‘remakes’ to date are the Mummy trilogy starring Brendan Fraser, a 1979 adaptation of Dracula, 2004’s Van Helsing, 2010’s The Wolfman, and 2014’s Dracula Untold. That last film was intended to be the first in a new line of Universal Monster films set within a shared universe a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, in the years since its release, it’s been retroactively dismissed from the studio’s overall plans. Thus, here we are now with the ‘real’ first official entry in this new line of Universal Monster films; The Mummy. Alex Kurtzman, co-writer of the first two Star Trek reboot films and other various franchise efforts, directs the first installment of a series that’s being dubbed as the Dark Universe. Several ‘re-imaginings’ are in the works at this moment, but for now, it all starts with Universal’s second major reboot of their 1932 horror classic, The Mummy. However, despite the best efforts of Kurtzman and his stacked ensemble cast, led by Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, and Sofia Boutella in the title role, this new take on The Mummy suffers from a bland script that ultimately makes it a rather dull affair.

In modern-day Iraq, a team of military operatives, led by Sgt. Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), come across an ancient Egyptian tomb despite being thousands of miles from Egypt. Morton and his team, including Sgt. Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) and archaeologist Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), soon learn that this tomb is the resting place for a former princess named Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). Back in her day, she was slated to be next in line for the throne of Egypt as the only offspring of the current king. However, those plans change when her father’s new wife ends up having a son. Making a deal with the deity Set, she kills her father, his wife, and their newborn son, but is mummified alive before managing to give Set a human body to inhabit as per their agreement. Back in the present, the efforts of Nick’s team to excavate Ahmanet’s coffin from the tomb cause a chain reaction of events that results in the destruction of their plane when they leave the area, with Nick having seemingly gone down with it. However, he somehow miraculously survives this, something that confounds him just as much as it does his peers. To make matters worse, Ahmanet ends up escaping from her coffin and continues her efforts to become ruler of the world. And as Nick finds out, these plans of hers end up involving him as well when Ahmanet prepares to have him be her new human sacrifice for Set. While this is going on, Nick also comes across a mysterious organization known as ‘Prodigium’, led by scientist Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe), that investigates into matters like this. 

It seems like this new Mummy is trying to be a mix of both the 1932 original and the 1999 remake. In other words, whereas the 1999 remake was primarily an action-adventure flick, this new film tries to combine elements from both that and the original, which was strictly a horror film. It’s a shame, really, that it ultimately doesn’t deliver as either a horror film or an action-adventure film. I mean, it may just be because I’m not a big horror fan compared to others, but I didn’t find this film to be that ‘scary’. Instead, it ultimately feels more like the action-oriented romps that the Brendan Fraser Mummy films were... and yet even that aspect of the film is mediocrely done. To the film’s credit, the action sequences are, at the very least, well-directed, and everything’s fine from a technical perspective. However, it feels like these action sequences are few and far between in this because every other scene is exposition-based, making the entire film feel slow and uneventful. I’m usually not one to criticize trailers for revealing too much, but this is a legitimate instance where the trailers basically showed off every major sequence in this film. But then what about the film’s efforts to establish a full-on cinematic universe based around the Universal Monsters? Well, even that aspect feels underdeveloped as there are no real allusions to other monsters in this aside from the appearance of Dr. Jekyll and his evil counterpart, Mr. Hyde. I mean, I’m not saying that these films should be exactly like Marvel, where they can have other characters appear in films where they’re not the focus. This is, after all, just the first installment of a new series. But, still, it would’ve at least helped in this instance because it could’ve made this film more interesting. As is, it feels more like it’s setting up future Dark Universe films instead of trying to be a Mummy film.  

The dull and underdeveloped nature of the script also ends up affecting the film’s main characters, who are all generally bland. Tom Cruise is fine as he always is, and Annabelle Wallis is solid as well as the film’s main female lead, but neither get anything major to work with. This is the case despite everything that happens to the former in this film, while the latter is simply relegated to being a ‘damsel in distress’ most of the time. Technically speaking, Jake Johnson gets more to work with in this than either of them combined, and yet his whole role in the film is to just pop in and out from time to time with what I can basically describe as ‘humorous’ commentary (I use the term ‘humorous’ loosely because this film’s efforts at humor are lackluster at best) that only Cruise’s character can witness because, minor spoiler, Johnson’s character gets infected by Ahmanet and becomes one of her minions. Speaking of Ahmanet, Sofia Boutella is also fine enough in her respective role and it is a nice twist to have the main Mummy villain be a female this time around. However, like her co-stars, she is severely hindered by the mediocre material that she’s working with. In fact, she doesn’t really do that much in this which, sadly, means that her character comes off as being not much of a threat in the grand scheme of things. Thus, the most interesting character in the film ends up being Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Again, this is another prime example of a character who’s clearly being set up to have a larger role in future films. Still, for the brief screen-time that he has in this film, Crowe ends up having the best screen presence out of the entire cast, especially when he’s in his ‘Mr. Hyde’ phase.   

Going in, you wouldn’t expect a Mummy film starring Tom Cruise to be dull… and yet, this film somehow ended up doing exactly that. Now, I don’t blame this on director Alex Kurtzman; he, at least, does a solid enough job when it comes to directing, especially in terms of the film’s action sequences. Ultimately, the film’s biggest issues lie in its script. Not only does this film suffer from a mediocre plot, but it feels like it’s just meant to be set-up for future entries in this new Dark Universe instead of being a Mummy film. And because of this, it fails to make much of an impression, effectively stranding its talented ensemble cast in a slow and ho-hum attempt at mixing elements of action and horror. However, I’m still generally optimistic about this Dark Universe. For one thing, out of all the proposed cinematic universes that have been tossed around in the news from Transformers to Ghostbusters, this plan of doing a universe around Universal’s monsters arguably has the most potential because it has happened before back when this series was in its prime (e.g. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man). Besides, we just came off an instance where the fate of a planned Cinematic Universe was saved with a critically-acclaimed outing via Wonder Woman and the DC Extended Universe. In other words, one disastrous effort, even if it’s the first installment of a new series as this film is, doesn’t automatically mean that the entire franchise is dead on arrival (no pun intended). Thus, I’m looking forward to the next installment of this Dark Universe franchise; a new take on Bride of Frankenstein directed by Bill Condon. I strongly feel that this one could work because Condon is no stranger to the material, having directed a 1998 film titled Gods and Monsters which focused on that film’s production. As for The Mummy, though, it’s not ‘god-awful’ or anything; it’s just that it could’ve been a lot better given the talent involved.

Rating: 2/5

The Mummy Trilogy (1999-2008) Retrospective

Universal Studios is perhaps best known for the numerous monster films that they produced over the span of four decades (i.e. the 20’s to the 50’s). Classic films like Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf Man were huge critical and commercial hits back in the day, and have since been regarded as some of the most iconic films in the horror genre. One of these films was 1932’s The Mummy, starring Boris Karloff in his second major Universal Monsters role after playing the monster in Frankenstein as an ancient Egyptian priest named Imhotep who is buried alive when he attempts to resurrect his forbidden lover, Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon. Centuries later, he is re-awakened by a group of archeologists and continues his quest to reunite with the love of his life. I previously reviewed this film during my Universal Monsters retrospective this past October. In that post, I noted that while I felt that it was one of the weaker entries in the Universal Monsters lineup, it still had some great elements to it, from some effectively atmospheric moments to Boris Karloff’s underrated turn in the title role; at least, underrated when compared to his turn as Frankenstein’s monster. After the original’s release, it was followed by four sequels in the 40’s and 50’s, though the term ‘sequel’ is used loosely in this instance because these films focused on a different Mummy, Kharis. The last one even featured comedy duo Abbott and Costello in what was one of their many crossovers with the Universal Monsters, including the previously reviewed Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Four years after Universal’s franchise ended, famed horror studio Hammer Films would create their own Mummy franchise. It ran from 1959 to 1971 and the first film, simply titled The Mummy, starred the studio’s biggest icons, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, the latter of whom played the title role.

But today, we’re looking at Universal’s first major attempt at rebooting this classic franchise; an attempt that shifted this horror classic into an action-adventure series. In 1999, director Stephen Sommers’ The Mummy was released in theaters and it became a massive commercial hit. It was so successful that it spawned two sequels, a spin-off prequel that spawned a few sequels itself albeit direct-to-video ones, an animated series which ran for two seasons on the Kids’ WB block in the early 2000’s (one that I do distinctly remember watching as a kid), and a popular roller-coaster ride at several Universal theme parks. This week, Universal revives this classic franchise with a new reboot, starring Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, and Sofia Boutella, in what is intended to be the first installment in a new line of Universal Monster films set within a shared universe. Only time will tell if this ‘Dark Universe’ (as they’re calling it) manages to work, but in honor of the new Mummy’s release, today we’ll be looking back at the previous Mummy trilogy, which ran from 1999 to 2008 and starred Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. To be clear, I’m only covering the theatrically-released Mummy films. I will not be reviewing any of the direct-to-video Scorpion King films. However, just for the hell of it, I will be including the theatrically-released Scorpion King film from 2002 in this retrospective because it is the series’ official spin-off. And, really, this is the only instance where I could possibly do so because I am not planning on reviewing those direct-to-video sequels anytime soon and probably never will. With that in mind, it’s time to do what Brendan Fraser does best in these films; ‘Rescue the damsel in distress, kill the bad guy, save the world’. Okay, maybe not all that but, still, here are my reviews of the recent Mummy trilogy.

THE MUMMY (1999)

It all started in 1999 when director Stephen Sommers released his remake of Universal’s seminal horror flick, The Mummy. But instead of maintaining the atmospheric horror elements of the original, Sommers opted for a big-budget action-adventure blockbuster reminiscent of the Indiana Jones films. And while watching this film, you can certainly sense the similarities that it shares with a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark. It’s nowhere near as iconic as Raiders, mind you, but it is still entertaining even if it’s basically just a dumb action flick. Most of the film’s action set-pieces are solid as is its overall production design. The visuals, on the other hand, though… yeah, the CGI in this film has dated quite a bit, something that’s quite noticeable anytime that it pops up (e.g. the titular Mummy (Imhotep) when he’s first re-awakened, many of the wide shots, etc.) despite being one of the major elements of the film. As for the cast, Brendan Fraser is solid enough in the role of lead Rick O’Connell, Rachel Weisz is arguably the biggest standout of them all as female lead Evelyn Carnahan, and John Hannah provides some funny bits of humor as Evelyn’s bumbling brother Jonathan (“Americans…”). In short, the 1999 remake of The Mummy is far from perfect, but as an old-fashioned summer blockbuster, its unabashed spirit is there in spades and that’s at least appreciated. Sure, it’s aged quite a bit compared to today’s standards (pun not intended since this film is about mummies), but it does deliver, for the most part, on what it’s trying to be.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)

After the first Mummy proved to be a smash-hit at the box-office, Universal immediately greenlit a sequel; thus, Sommers and the main cast returned for the fittingly titled sequel, The Mummy Returns. This film notably served as the feature film debut of the one and only Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, who plays the villainous ‘Scorpion King’. However, his role in the film is ultimately a minor one; he only appears at the beginning of the film and at the end (somewhat; I’ll explain in a bit). It wasn’t until the character’s spin-off the following year when he finally ascended to the status of leading man. As for Returns, though, it’s basically the same general situation as its predecessor. Admittedly, in some areas, this one is more entertaining, kind of, due to a faster pace. But, at the same time, this means that the film is basically an onslaught of action sequences that leave little time for any character development. By comparison, the first film, even though it, too, was a dumb action flick, at least took the time to flesh out its main characters. Like the original, though, the film does have some solid action set-pieces and a great production design which, for the most part, makes up for the visuals which, once again, have dated horribly. I mean, many have already pointed out the infamous scene in which Rick fights the re-awakened Scorpion King (hence what I said earlier about Dwayne Johnson’s ‘appearance’ in the finale) but, really, the same can be said for almost all the film’s CGI effects. For a film that had a budget of $98 million, a budget that clearly must’ve been focused on the effects… I have the feeling that these effects were regarded as subpar even back when it was released. Thus, I ultimately find myself rating this film the same way that I did the first; it’s entertaining in parts but there are other elements in it that have not aged well.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE SCORPION KING (2002)

Before he became known as one of the most charismatic actors in the business, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson was transitioning from his career in wrestling to one in film in the early 2000’s. As noted earlier, he made his official film debut in The Mummy Returns. But, as noted earlier, he basically only had a cameo in that. However, the studio liked his character, Mathayus the Scorpion King, enough that they decided to give him his own spin-off. Thus, one year later, the Rock finally got his first leading role in The Scorpion King, in which his character was re-tooled into a protagonist. And, overall, it’s very much a spin-off of the Mummy films; it’s a generally mindless affair and it’s even a bit derivative at times. For one thing, the main character’s love interest is a sorceress who will lose her powers if she loses her virginity… you know, like Solitaire from Live and Let Die? But even with this in mind, I will admit that I found it to be an entertaining film, even if its kick-ass theme song, ‘I Stand Alone’ by Godsmack… is basically the only thing that people remember about this film nowadays. For one thing, I will give the film credit for not taking itself too seriously, as there is a pleasantly light-hearted feel to it. Sure, this does sometimes result in bits of humor that try way too hard to warrant laughs, but at just 92 minutes long, this is an easy watch. Plus, after the highly mediocre effects of The Mummy Returns, this film does at least utilize as many practical effects and stunts as it possibly can (e.g. Dwayne Johnson recently revealed in a YouTube video that real killer ants were used in the scenes where Mathayus is about to executed by the main villain’s guards). And while it may only be his first leading role, Johnson does show some early signs of that great charisma that he’s well-known for. Thus, while it may be a bit forgettable, The Scorpion King is, at the very least, a decent attempt at a spin-off… a spin-off that somehow managed to warrant a prequel and two sequels in the years since despite Johnson’s absence.

Rating: 3/5

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)

This rebooted franchise concluded in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. As the title suggests, it shifted the action from Egypt to China and it also saw a change in direction, with Rob Cohen (director of the original Fast and the Furious) taking over as director. However, it’s also the weakest installment of the trilogy by a long shot. The potential for some decent action sequences is wasted via shoddy editing and cinematography which, based on what I’ve heard about Cohen’s infamous adaptation of Alex Cross, is sort of becoming a common factor in his films. And, once again, the film’s visual effects are quite mediocre; seriously, this franchise never managed to catch a break when it came to CGI. Ironically, though, this film had the biggest budget of any entry in the series to date at around $145 million (Here’s hoping that the new Mummy will have better effects). Another big detriment is the loss of Rachel Weisz in the role of Evelyn. Though, to be fair, if she didn’t come back because of the script, which is one of the rumored reasons as to why she didn’t, then I wouldn’t blame her. Maria Bello takes over the role in this film and while she is a good actress, she’s severely underused and her chemistry with Brendan Fraser lacks the great dynamic that he and Weisz had. As I alluded to earlier, I’d argue that Rachel Weisz was the best part about the first two films, as her character was both the most charismatic and most interesting (e.g. in the second film, we learn that, in a past life, she was an Egyptian princess). Here, though, the character isn’t given anything to do despite what we’ve seen from her in previous films. It also doesn’t help that the film overdoes it when it comes to humor; seriously, even The Scorpion King was better at this. In short, I don’t mind the idea of this franchise exploring different ‘mummy-type’ scenarios outside of Egypt. However, that concept went nowhere because Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, despite doing as well commercially as its predecessors, ended up being a massive dud that effectively killed the franchise, hence why we have the new film that’s coming out this week.

Rating: 0.5/5

The 'Universal Monsters' - A Halloween Retrospective

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!