Friday, November 9, 2018
The Dying Breed Movie Club Starring Phil Congleton
Welcome to .......
The Dying Breed Movie Club
With your Host .......
Phil Congleton
A Brief History
The name Dying Breed Movie Club is actually an oxymoron. We are trying very hard not to be part of a "Dying Breed". With the continued influx of entertainment across the digital universe, it feels like, more and more, younger people are rejecting movies older than 1990, let alone, a film from 1950 and we are trying to say that movies from any era are important for people of any age and background and we want to talk about those important details.
Loosely based on the book, "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die". This concept was born from the book and a club I started in 2006 with my friends. The rules were simple:
"Once the club is done watching all the movies in a particular year from the book and a selection of additional Extra Credit films picked by the Club, they will again roll (2) 10 sided dice or have a vote to see what the next year will be. Each member has to write a review of the movie to make it official".
The "game" we played lasted a few years and when that was over, due to our lives changing and budget issues, then that idea grew into what is on this Blog today. A place to talk about movies, either conventional or not.
My name is Phil. I have been watching movies for 45 years. I have been writing reviews (for fun and for myself), for 40 years. I worked in the film/tv/video/photography business for 32 years and now that I am semi-retired I want to concentrate more on my love and understanding of movies and film. The history behind them. The theory behind them and the critical importance of the art of film too. This will be a fun ride for me and I hope many of you will join me for the quest.
Here are the departments I am building for the future of the Blog.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Phil's Journey Through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" Book: Film #153: The Wolfman (1941)
Dracula and Frankenstein had been making their rounds for 10 years now (along with a couple of other monsters, like The Mummy and The Invisible Man), but as 1940 dawned the classic monsters started to wane with the public, so Universal had to turn it up a notch with a new monster and they cast the son of a legendary horror master from the silent era to help introduce the world to The Wolfman (1941).
153). The Wolfman (1941)
Year: 1941Run Time: 70 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: George Waggner
Starring: Lon Chaney JR., Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, Evelyn Ankers, Maria Ouspenskaya, Patric Knowles and Bela Lugosi
I have seen this one many times in the past too. I owned 10 mins of it on Super-8 film back in the 70s and early 80s. I am pretty sure I have seen the whole thing a half a dozen times on VHS and DVD. The DBC never got to 1941 on the 1001 Movie List, but I did watch this on my big 50 inch rear projection TV about a week ago and it brought back much nostalgia for me, especially the scenes that appeared in my Super-8 movie I had before the VHS era.
A continuing line between all of these films was the masterwork done by the Make-Up Effects Director, who got his job in the wake of the loss of Lon Chaney just before Dracula (1931). A man who worked on all of these films and was a staple of the Universal Horror cog of films, but Jack Pierce, who invented the Frankenstein look, finally became a legend in film make-up artistry (something that wouldn't be seen again until Rick Baker emerged in the 70s), with the work he did on The Wolfman (1941).
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034398/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_Man_(1941_film)
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/j_k5TyfHMQw
Jack Pierce Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pierce_(makeup_artist)
Jack Pierce FX Master Documentary on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/f8HMMbMgDVg
Lon Chaney JR. Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Chaney,_Jr.
Lon Chaney JR: Son of a Thousand Faces Documentary on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/s1VfY8IJ0qE
Maria Ouspenskaya Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Ouspenskaya
Original Film Soundtrack on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/fCm909jZz3w
Universal Classic Monsters: Complete 30-Film Collection (Dracula / Frankenstein / Bride of Frankenstein / Wolf Man / The Mummy / Invisible Man / Creature from the Black Lagoon / Phantom of the Opera) on Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Classic-Monsters-Collection-Frankenstein/dp/B00L8QP082/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414789877&sr=8-1&keywords=universal+monsters
Universal Pictures did everything they could with this one to get their fan-base back. The world was dealing with a second World War and the people needed their dose of escapism. What better way to do it but with a new monster using legendary mythology, this time with Lycanthropy and the mark of the werewolf. This film is a good one. Sure, it is not without a few mistakes that I will get into in a moment, but this one was definitely a ground-breaker.
The casting of Lon Chaney JR was a fantastic idea. His father was the master of the silent era of horror films. If he had lived longer his father would have been cast as Dracula before Bela Lugosi was even thought of, so it was interesting, plus nostalgic, that the son of the horror master, a man with the same name as the biggest pre-1930 star in the film business, would be the Wolfman. The strongest part of this film was the acting. Chaney JR was not known for his acting, but this film could be his best acting effort. An amazing cast of names join Chaney JR in this one: Rains, Bellamy, Ouspenskaya and Lugosi, just to name a few. Claude Rains kicks ass in this film. A true master and I think the real hero of the movie. Universal kept the pace with the structure of the film, harking back to what made the earlier films great with amazing set designs, ground-breaking make-up effects and state of the art technical achievements. The mood, the music, the pace, everything is there and this time a script and acting to take it over the top. The only bad component found in this film throughout are a lot of one-line, over-the-top dialogue misfires, especially Bellamy.
A few other negative aspects about this film, and these are things that are probably more noticeable with viewings today (back in 1941 the audience probably took a creative leap of faith and didn't pay attention to the mistakes, because this was state-of-the-art at the time), are many glaring mistakes in continuity and logic, that makes you scratch your head and ask, "why didn't they catch that and fix it"? There is a scene where Talbot (Chaney), just went through his whole transformation back to human form and his new love-interest friend, Gwen (Ankers) and Maleva, the resilient old gypsy woman (Ouspenskaya), who knows everything about werewolves, find him and as the scene fades into the next scene the impression is implied that Gwen and the gypsy woman (who looks about 85 and weighs about the same), are going to drag hulking Lon Chaney JR back to camp by themselves. I wasn't buying that, in fact, later in the film they try and pass off the idea that Ouspenskaya can drag him back to camp by herself.
Another unexplainable mistake I noticed was not a technical one nor was it a continuity issue, but it could turn some of today's viewers off, because I'm not totally sure if it was something that was acceptable in culture back in 1941, but I'm sure would draw a lawsuit today. Talbot (Chaney), is checking out his father's telescope, and behold, gets a glimpse of Ankers in her home down in the town below. Then he goes to her, a complete stranger (she's also engaged), and after he manages to get a "date" with her, he eventually tells her he has been watching her with his Dad's telescope back up the hill. She pretty much blows it off, giggles and then meets him at the Town Faire and after she gets in an argument with her fiance', she almost makes out with Talbot. Just a weird set of circumstances that came to a strange conclusion.
But, my favorite glaring mistake (and it's a big one), that I have always noticed in this movie is the amazing ability of a mindless blood thirsty monster that can change his wardrobe before going out for his hunt. In the famous first changing scene, in which Chaney and Make-Up artist Fred Pierce, masterfully give the audience it's first real lycanthropic transformation on the silver screen, Talbot is wearing a white muscle shirt and very light grey-ish pants, but as we move into the next scene, he is now wearing a fully black dark jumpsuit, with buttons I might add. OK, this guy ain't going to change clothes. I guess it just happens when he changes into the wolfman.
In a nutshell, the story is pretty good. What could have hurt this film was a cliche' before it was even a cliche' that the writers did not "bite" on and I think was a very smart move that they did this. Bela is a gypsy, who, as we find out, is a werewolf. He changes one night and attacks a woman in the woods. Our hero, Talbot (Chaney), comes to the woman's rescue and he is bitten by Bela, sooooooo, whammo, Talbot is now a Wolfman. We then go through a story where we meet the other supporting characters, most notedly, Talbot's father (Rains) and Gwen (Ankers), as the previously mentioned lady in the telescope. What might not be common knowledge (although I always thought it was, maybe from seeing these movies all my life), is the fact that a werewolf can only be killed by a silver object that is wielded by someone who loves the human inside the werewolf. Without giving anything away the writers do something very surprising and logically sound and not cliche' at all. They use a slight-of-hand judgement that works out great at the end of the movie. The cliche' of "werewolves can only be killed by the ones who love them" that they chose to avoid in this film is a cliche' that pops up in other werewolf/wolfman movies since the release of this one. It usually involves the female love-interest in the film and it was refreshing to see that they didn't do that for this film, but if there are members in the audience who know about that aspect of lycanthropy the writers covered that argument too. That's all I'm going to say about that. No spoilers. See the end. Also, Universal did something new with this film. It is one of the first with an almost continuous soundtrack all throughout the film, showing the advances in sound technology that gives this film extra juice that I am sure the 1941 public loved.
Phil's Grade: B+
And that concludes my exploration into the fourth and last film in the series found on the 1001 Movie List. There are six more films that follow this one that I will go into here. So, to review; the first six films in this monster series are Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Dracula's Daughter (1936), Son of Frankenstein (1939) and The Wolfman (1941). Here are the rest.
The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
Run Time: 67 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Starring: Cedric Hardwicke, Lon Chaney JR., Lionel Atwill, Ralph Bellamy, Evelyn Ankers and Bela Lugosi
This one I saw very rarely, in fact, up until this viewing, I probably only saw it once as a kid. This time around I ended up watching it twice. It's a good thing too, because I may have ended up hating this movie if I hadn't. Watching it a second time made me like it more. It is true that Universal Pictures, entering into the 1940s, tightened up their money belts and cut back on the budgets for these films, because you can see it in the basic design of each film going forward. There is truth that these films entered into the "B" class after The Wolfman (1941). Almost the entire cast of The Wolfman returns for this film, showing that contracts are cheaper than paying per film. To bridge the gap from the last Frankenstein film Bela Lugosi returns as Ygor.
Trailer on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/Jxtn5mwnMiM
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_of_Frankenstein
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034786/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Erle C. Kenton Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erle_C._Kenton
Lionel Atwill IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0041172/?ref_=tt_cl_t4
Evelyn Ankers Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Ankers
This being the fourth installment of the Frankenstein branch of the series, Universal was faced with a plot issue. After going through one son of Frankenstein in the last film where would they go now? Invent another son. They also felt that the need for Frankenstein's castle and his laboratory was becoming stale so they moved the action to a new location, Ludwig's sanitarium.
The reason I had to watch this a second time was the fact that I wanted to see if the "B" movie aspect of this film effected me more than I thought it did. It did. There are a handful of glaring cheezy moments going on throughout this film, but in the grand scheme of things it's not as bad as you would think. The first is; Lon Chaney does a bad Frankenstein Monster. He wanders around in a dead silence barely moving anything with hardly any facial expressions. It is quite silly when he is trying to harness a lightning bolt for power, while Ygor tries to stop him, wandering from tree to tree to get struck by lightning. Then we move on to Ludwig's Sanitarium where Ludwig's daughter, Elsa is trying to understand more about the work that her Grandfather did. While she is reading his journal the audience is treated to flashbacks of Frankenstein (1931) and scenes with Colin Clive and Dwight Frye running around the lab creating the monster (Karloff). They even make sure to catch themselves by not showing Karloff lying on the table, but they actually take the time to re-create that shot with Chaney on the table. The problem here is about ten minutes later in the film we finally learn about the "Ghost" part of this film. Ludwig is clashing with himself on whether or not he should save the creature. While considering his options he has an experience encountering the ghost of his dead father. Well, instead of using shots of Colin Clive and coming up with a unique way to use that, they filmed Cedric Hardwicke in costume and old-man wig, pretending to be his own father, but the whole thing loses it's integrity, because now the audience is trying to figure out if Colin Clive is his father or is Cedric Hardwicke in a Clive costume the real father. I chuckled a lot during that scene. The film takes another cheezy turn when the operation at the end of the film reveals Ygor's treachery as Ygor's voice comes out of the monster. This is the only time Chaney shows any real movement in his face as he tries to lipsink Bela's lines, which is funny too.
What saves this film from being a total loss is the acting. Hardwicke and Atwill are top notch. Ankers seems to really be growing into these roles. Bela is great as usual and the culmination of all these actors, coupled with some cool set pieces, great music (ahead of it's time - it sounded more like the 60s) and you have a half-decent chapter in the Frankenstein mythos, albeit the image of Henry Frankenstein has been lost or confused. - Grade: C+
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943)
Year: 1943
Run Time: 74 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Roy William Neill
Starring: Patric Knowles, Lon Chaney JR., Ilona Massey, Lionel Atwill, Maria Ouspenskaya, Dwight Frye and Bela Lugosi
This one I also saw very sparingly when I was younger, but this time around may have been my third or fourth time I have ever seen it totally. It was nice catching it on DVD on my big 50 inch projection TV. This is actually a pretty good film despite the fact that it falls during the "B" version of the series. Universal took no time in getting it's best two monsters together. This film has the feeling of being the 1943 version of the Avengers (2012). Universal actually created the shared universe concept long before Marvel even thought of it. They started with Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolfman and after doing a few films with those characters alone it was time to bring them together and even though Dracula is not in this one, his presence is felt by the mere fact that Chaney and Lugosi are in the same film fighting each other. Dracula makes his appearance in the next get-together a few years later.
This would also be a film that speaks volumes about the destiny that Bela Lugosi would follow. For it was he who turned down the original role as the Monster (being replaced by Karloff in Frankenstein (1931), and he felt the impact of such a bad choice that it was only destiny's humorous prediction that one day he would have to be the Frankenstein monster and it arrived with this film. What is sad is his portrayal of the monster (for my money it was a nice portrayal, because Bela made it more animated and less stiff in the facial area), but Bela was now in his early-60s, trying to carry the weight of a 200 pound costume with a bad back, suffering from exhaustion and you can see it in the film. My research indicates that up to three stuntmen had to help him out with certain scenes and you can tell it is a different guy encased in the ice when Talbot finds him. His legs moved way too stiff-like and he couldn't move around to the point that you thought he could catch you and be convincingly scary. It was a slow, painful to watch presentation, but he had the facial expressions down, completely with grunts and hissing. He flailed around like he couldn't see and we will touch on this later, because there are things that occurred during filming that may explain this. Unfortunately, they are in the SPOILERS BELOW.
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/_Kaa88LIwJo
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035899/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_Meets_the_Wolfman
Patrick Knowles Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patric_Knowles
Roy William Neill Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_William_Neill
This film is really enjoyable. It has a lot of elements in it that make it entertaining as well as interesting. The film is broken up into two parts. The first part of the film is a direct sequel to The Wolfman (1941). It takes place four years after the events in the first film and they do come up with a very acceptable and original way of bringing Lawrence Talbot back. To bridge the gap from the first film to this one they also employ the help of Maria Ouspenskaya, as Maleva, the old wise gypsy woman, who protects and aids Talbot in his task to rid himself of the wolf. She leads Talbot to the one man who might be able to help him ........ Frankenstein.
The second part of the film brings back the Frankenstein monster and the "Meet-Up" begins. The monster (Lugosi), doesn't enter into the film until around 40 minutes in. Universal really wanted to exploit their newest and hottest property (the wolfman), to it's extent, until eventually they would bring in the tired old property (the monster). The old meets the new. It is very fitting that Talbot and the monster end up being friends at the start. The monster manages to understand Talbot as a tormented soul too, so he ends up befriending Talbot as they both convince Dr. Mannering (Knowles), into finding a way to cure Talbot. We also meet Henry Frankenstein's grand daughter, Elsa (Massey), who can lead Ygor, Mannering and the monster to her father's journal. Universal dusted off another Frankenstein family member.
Again, Universal wasted no expense in producing this block-buster. The model of the Frankenstein castle ruins looks great amidst a backdrop of a dam just above the castle. The same set pieces, costumes and make-up are on target. Jack Pierce, the genius make-up artist behind all of these films and Director Roy William Neill give the audience what was missing in the first film. A full-faced transformation scene of Talbot turning into the Wolfman.
Transformation Scene on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/sG7Ck_6gQso
..... But, getting back to the Frankenstein monster....... This was the area where the film takes a questionable turn. From Frankenstein (1931) to Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), the writers at Universal managed to cover their tracks quite nicely by explaining how each film bridged to the next. Bride of Frankenstein (1935), picks up about an hour after the first film. Son of Frankenstein (1939), explains itself quite well by giving us the satisfaction that the film probably takes place about 35 years after "Bride". That fact is easily figured out, since it is Frankenstein's son, he would need time to grow up, obviously. It's also interesting to note that the locations and set-pieces in the first film and "Bride" gave the impression that these films took place in the early 1900s. No cars are seen in those films, only horse carriages are seen. The old, rustic, countryside is all that is really used as a setting, unless you are viewing the castle scenes or in the cobblestone streets of the 18th century town of Goldstadt. The electronic gadgets that Frankenstein uses in his lab, as technologically advanced as they are, still give a feeling of late 19th/early 20th century science. When we get to "Son" and "Ghost" it definitely feels like the writers have brought the Frankenstein world up to modern times, in this case, the 1940s. Once we do get to "Ghost" the writers explain that there is another brother of Frankenstein.
*** Son of Frankenstein (1939) and Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) SPOILER ALERTS ***
At the end of "Son" Basil Rathbone's Wolf Frankenstein swings across the laboratory and kicks the monster into an ancient sulfur pit found below. As "Ghost" opens up we get the feeling that a few years have gone by (the writers made it feel like 3 years went by), so it really feels like it is 1942 (the year the film was released). Ygor, who we believed was shot dead in "Son" is still alive (but much slower and in more pain, because now you have to add bullet wounds to his broken neck and every other ailment he has). After the villagers decide to destroy the castle for good, Ygor runs for cover down to the catacombs just as the TNT goes off. After the villagers leave, he stumbles across the monster covered in a tomb of sulfur. That came from the sulfur pit scene at the end of "Son". The writers successfully give us the bridge that we need and the integrity of the film continues on. This brings me to the point I wanted to make about Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), and the questionable turn the film takes. Once we get to that moment where the Frankenstein monster meets Talbot a question arises. In "Ghost" all of the characters move on to another town, away from Goldstadt (now named the village of Frankenstein - lame!). Ygor takes the monster to Ludwig's mansion and sanitarium in another town, Vasaria. Here is where the remainder of that film takes place, including the end when the monster burns alive in the sanitarium. There are other strange things that happened from "Ghost" to this film. As mentioned in my "Ghost" review, at the end of "Ghost" the monster goes blind while speaking with Bela's voice, because the monster inherits Ygor's defective brain. Well, none of this happens in this film ............... or did it? Some of my research indicates that the writers did want to go with the blindness and "Ygor speaking" Monster for this film, but because fan reaction to both situations was so wildly negative they removed any mention of the blindness and removed all of Bela's VO work. That explains why Bela is flailing around so much. The monster is still blind. We just weren't told.
*** IT'S SAFE AGAIN ***
Well! As this film reaches that moment when Talbot finds the monster everything stops. The integrity of the film goes out the window or does it? Talbot and Maleva get to Goldstadt (or Frankenstein Village, whatever the fuck it's called now), and go to the castle. After Talbot has a ruff night (see what I did there?), he finds himself in the the catacombs and behold the monster is there again encased in ice from the river. How? He was in Vasaria in the other film. I guess it is fair to say that since three years went by it's always possible that the monster wandered back there off camera. I can deal with that, but it does cause a stir in a film that was doing quite well to this point. It's hard enough seeing Bela trying to move around in the "Frank" costume. We don't need to be asking continuity questions either. The continuity/bridge could have been handled better. You must be careful with the bridge you build from one film to another.
Still, I really enjoyed this one. It may, in fact, be my favorite of the series. The critic/movie-file in me has to try and go with an unbiased opinion, so in that respect, it does have a hard time competing with the first three films (it is better than "Ghost"). I was very pleased with what I saw. It really did remind me of the Avengers (2012), in it's unique "let's bring the monsters together in the same film" feeling and it only gets more interesting from here .......... Dracula joins the mix moving forward, Oh! And, did you hear the one about Abbott and Costello? - Grade: B+
Son of Dracula (1943)
Year: 1943
Run Time: 80 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Robert Siodmak
Starring: Lon Chaney JR., Robert Paige, Louise Allbritton, Evelyn Ankers, George Irving, Frank Craven and J. Edward Bromberg
I'm not sure if I ever saw this one before. Maybe as a kid I did, but I can't remember. At any rate, I was glad I was able to catch this one, because it turned out to be better than I feared it might be. Let's get one thing out of the way now before we start. Dracula (Chaney), goes by the fake name of Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards), but the idea of him being the son of Dracula is never really clear. Throughout the film, when he isn't referenced as Alucard he is called Dracula. The Universal executives probably felt that they could call it "son" since it is a new Dracula and a new actor, but still try and pass him as the one and only. It doesn't really seem to effect the integrity of the film at all. Fine! 12 years have gone by since the first film (and maybe even more, because the first film gives the feeling that it takes place in the early 1900s even though I'm pretty sure I heard a car horn in one of the London scenes). Why not accept the fact, that during that 12 years, Dracula came back and is terrorizing the countryside again. Why not?
Trailer on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/B0rPaeTHJmY
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Dracula_(1943_film)
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036376/?ref_=nv_sr_1
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that this film wasn't too bad at all. Sure it's got some issues (Chaney's creepy mustache is one), but the story is pretty good and Director Robert Siodmark and Cinematographer George Robinson put together some pretty good camera shots, along with some nifty effects that pop up throughout the film. Good stuff for 1943. What is really good is the fact that there is no need for a set-up for this film or a bridge from the first two films. They get right to it. Another really interesting fact about this film is it changes the backdrop and setting from European to America, Louisiana to be exact. Dracula comes to America.
Katherine (Allbritton), who just inherited her father's (Irving), plantation and wealth invites Alucard to her home. She has a boyfriend, Frank (Paige), who finds out that she has been seeing Alucard and once finding out she also secretly married Alucard, accidentally shoots and "kills" her. Unknown to everyone else, Dracula already took care of that little problem and she returns as a vampire. She is pretty morbid and creepy to begin with and now being a vampire makes things even more interesting. Hungarian Professor Lazlo (Bromberg), playing the Van Helsing anti-hero role in this film, comes for a visit at the calling of family friend and "Dark Oaks" (the plantation estates that Katherine owns), leading Doctor, Dr. Brewster (Craven). Brewster has been suspecting vampirism during most of this ordeal with Katherine and Frank and knows that Alucard is trouble. Without giving anymore away the film takes a lot of different twists and turns and ends shockingly and cleverly. It was pretty cool actually.The story, the acting (there are a couple of misfires - Chaney overacts a little and the old gypsy woman in the beginning is a little embarrassing and cheezy), is really good. I also wish they gave Allbritton a better hair cut in this film.
Katherine Caldwell
The real Louise Allbritton. That's better !!!
You definitely need to see this one. If for anything see how well the creators of this film used new technical achievements in vampire transformations and bat flying techniques (bat is cheap, but no wires are seen). They have come a long way since 1931. One interesting shot they used was an over-the-bat-head shot looking down over the bat to Frank running on the ground. They also started implementing animation into the bat transformations and Chaney's entrance when he meets Katherine is cool too, because he changes and floats in the air on his way to his beloved. Along with the script, the effects and the streamlining of film-making made this film a pleasant surprise for me. - Grade: B
House of Frankenstein (1944)
Year: 1944Run Time: 71 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Starring: Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney JR., J. Carol Naish, Anne Gwynne, Lionel Atwill, Peter Coe, Elena Verdugo, with John Carradine and Glenn Strange
I'm pretty sure I saw this film a couple of times when I was a kid. I seem to recall seeing it about 10 or 15 years ago on a Halloween marathon on some network on cable television. Well, for this viewing a few days ago I knocked this one out with the last two films in the series. It was a nice and relaxing Saturday afternoon, which reminded me perfectly of when I used to watch these films on Creature Double Feature back in the 70s and early 80s. This was a very nostalgic project for me. It brought back great memories.
This film would also bring Boris Karloff to full circle. What Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), did for Bela Lugosi as the Frankenstein Monster, this film brings Boris Karloff back to the series as the Mad Scientist, Gustav Niemann, who this time is the man who tries to resurrect the monster. The man who originally portrayed the monster in Frankenstein (1931), would now be the man who experiments on the monster, now played by a virtual unknown named Glenn Strange.
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/I90bPakb1zs
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036931/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Frankenstein_(1944_film)
John Carradine Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carradine
Glenn Strange Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Strange
J. Carol Naish Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Carrol_Naish
Anne Gwynne Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gwynne
It is safe to say that Universal felt the end was coming. The monsters who were a huge hit and draw at the movie theaters from 1931-1941 were starting to lose their luster. They started to take on that image of satire. The war was coming to an end and new things were coming over the horizon and the escapism of movie monsters was not needed anymore. The audience was starting to disappear. It was only fitting that Universal would start to pull even more money out of the budgets and you can tell that these films started entering into the "C" list era of the series. But, even with that daunting challenge to deal with why not decide to shoot the whole load and bring everybody into the ring. The Frankenstein Monster (Strange), Dracula (Carradine), Wolfman (Chaney), Mad Scientist (Karloff) and they even dusted off the Hunchback idea from the silent era (Naish). I mentioned in my Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), review above that it felt like that film was the 1943 version of The Avengers (2012). It would have been nice to call this film (HOF), the 1944 version of the Avengers, because all the monsters are in it finally, but the poor budget and silly script ruins that analogy.
This film should have been called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Frankenstein's Castle", because the movie is broken up into two completely self-contained parts. It's almost ridiculous in it's design. It is in the same style as Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), but Dracula, who is back somehow after the events seen in Son of Dracula (1943 - see above), looking every bit like John Carradine wearing Lon Chaney JR's mustache (oh yeah, that is what is going on - I had to look twice - wtf), joins forces with Dr. Niemann (Karloff) and his side-kick, Daniel (Naish). Dracula immediately gets a greedy hard-on for a woman he meets in town (Gwynne), who totally loves his sparkly glow-in-the-dark costume ring that he uses to take the will away from people. I guess his old-fashioned eyes weren't enough, so they needed a silly mood ring. When he gets his chance to get her away from her fiance, he kidnaps her and takes off on a carriage. I'm not saying anything else, but here lies the problem. Dracula is only in the first 25 minutes of the film. Even the woman (Gwynne), he attacks and the family that chases after them all leave the film after the first 25 minutes. A quick cameo to get things going. It is so abrupt that it seems like a waste. Just an excuse to get his name on the marquee.......... and yes, it was a funny thing that happened on the way to Frankenstein's castle.
Which brings us to part two of the film. Niemann and Daniel who are in the same carriage race as Dracula get away and head for Niemann's home (Neimann just happens to also be a resident of Valaria, not far from where castle Frankenstein used to be). They stop at the Frankenstein ruins and manage to find the monster and the Wolfman encased in ice in the waters below the castle. The writers bridge these two films nicely, because this scene takes the viewer back to the dam breaking in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), and explains how they got there. Why they didn't do it for the Dracula portion of the film is beyond me. Once they get to Niemann's castle all hell breaks lose when Talbot (Chaney), cuts a deal with Niemann for Niemann to cure him, but all Niemann cares about is revitalizing the monster and world domination. There is also a side story about Daniel being in love with a lost gypsy girl, Ilonka (Verdugo), but she only has sights on Talbot. This is where the werewolf/wolfman cliche' gets tacky. I mentioned this in my Wolfman (1941) review. The writers for the Wolfman (1941), introduced that great poem that tells the world about the mark of the wolf that is heard in all the Wolfman films of the series:
"Even a man who is pure in heart and says his prayers by night may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and Autumn moon is bright".
But, HOF takes us one step further and this becomes the trending cliche' that follows these kinds of films for the rest of their days. It is the reason The Wolfman (1941) is great and this one is just silly. She (Ilonka), adds a few more lines to the poem that we haven't heard before;
Talbot adds: " ..... a werewolf must be killed by a silver bullet".
Ilonka adds: "..... fired by the hand of the one who loves him enough to understand".
It takes that silly cliche' that was executed so well in the other films and makes it silly, so from here on out ........ only his girlfreind can kill him. That is why The Wolfman (1941) is so good. He is killed by one who loves him ............, but it was his father. Really, this film could have been much better, but the tight budget and Universal giving up on their franchise is what kills this one. At least there are some cool camera shots and some nice use of lighting with the black and white, plus Anne Gwynne is hot. - Grade: C-
House of Dracula (1945)
Run Time: 67 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Starring: Lon Chaney JR., John Carradine, Martha O'Driscoll, Jane Adams, Lionel Atwill, Onslow Stevens and Glenn Strange
As I mentioned above with HOF, this one (HOD), also was a big hit when I was a kid, but when you look at it again today it is fair to say that it too is a "C" List film. I may be inclined to say that it was slightly better than HOF, but still pretty silly. All the movies above get a 6.0 or higher on the IMDB, which is still not bad when it comes to ratings. The highest rated film on IMDB is a 9.2, so if you adjust for the curve these films are still very admired even today. HOD is the only one below 6.0. It doesn't have the star power of Karloff in it like HOF did, but it does attempt to bring back all the bad guys again; Frankenstein Monster (Strange), Dracula (Carradine), Wolfman (Chaney), Mad Doctor (Stevens) and this time we get a female Hunchback (Adams). All for the price of admission.
Trailer on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/6KLf-PjcxQg
IMDB.com Article:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037793/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Dracula
Martha O'Driscoll Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_O%27Driscoll
Jane "Poni" Adams Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poni_Adams
Behind the Scenes Photos on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/t6BZymjKN48
Remember in my reviews for Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931) and The Wolfman (1941), in which, I mentioned that I used to own these films in nicely compact 8-20 minute Super-8 movie film presentations? They would take the best aspects and most important scenes and create smaller films for the pre-VHS home theater crowd of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I also owned The Mummy (1932), The Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954 - In 3D) and the last film in this series, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948). Well, I found one on YouTube for HOD.
Castle Films Super-8 Film Presntation on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/fF_o10k54-0
Back to the real film. Dracula (Carradine), returns again, totally unexplainable considering what happened in HOF, and this time he is searching for a cure to his sunlight-challenged condition. Complete with his bad looking fake mustache, Carradine goes around helping quite nicely to enhance the "C" quality of this film. Sorry, I am a John Carradine fan, but giving him the iconic role of Dracula just wasn't working for me in either film, especially with that ridiculous top hat they made him wear. He runs into our "Mad Scientist of the Week" Dr. Franz Edelmann (Stevens), who only goes nutty (and I'm surprised Universal didn't bill him as their Jeckyl & Hyde instead of the Mad Scientist, because his character is more like Jeckyl & Hyde), because he had a bad reaction to the blood transfusions he has been giving Dracula. We also get to meet our female hunchback assistant, Nina (Adams), and the eye-candy assistant Milizza, (O'Driscoll).
This film actually manages to be even worse than HOF. Not only does it get silly, cheap in it's design and comes up with a nonsensical way of describing Dracula's condition, but Universal takes it even further by using stock footage from Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) and Frankenstein Meets Wolfman (1943) to end the final climactic scene. Cheap bastards !! I will say this; the camera work and the lighting mixed in with the black and white still looks beautiful. Poor Jane Adams' demise looks great as the camera focuses on the shadows of her and the evil Dr. Edelmann. Nice work. Still this episodic nightmare is just that. The worst of the series. Thanks to the powers that be who decided to bring in Bud and Lou in the next one. It is a crazy idea that has amazing success. Too late for this one. - Grade: D+
The Ladies of both Houses:
 |
| Anne Gwynne |
 |
| Jane Adams |
 |
| Martha O'Driscoll |
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
Run Time: 83 mins
Genre: Comedy, Slapstick, Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Charles T. Barton
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney JR., Lenore Aubert, Jane Randolph, Frank Ferguson, Charles Bradstreet and Glenn Strange
After the last two films it is nice to end on a high note. Bud and Lou were always my favorites (with the Marx Brothers and The Three Stooges a close 2nd and 3rd). I owned a bunch of their films on Super-8 film back in the day, including this one (also had "Meet the Mummy", "Meet Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde" and "Meet The Killer, Boris Karloff"). This film has always been required viewing for me at Halloween, so I have seen it probably over a dozen times in my day. Universal decided to bring all of their hottest properties together, because not only were the monsters losing their audience, but so were Bud and Lou. With WWII over and the TV generation making it's debut, paradigms began to shift and the movie-going audience was looking for something new. To boost these films they tried one last time, by interjecting the greatest comedy team ever into the mix.
Trailer on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/j6l8auIACyc
Colorized Trailer on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/pzwNVy6T4fY
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040068/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_and_Costello_Meet_Frankenstein
Abbott and Costello Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_and_Costello
Charles T. Barton Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Barton_(director)
Bela Lugosi returns full circle by completing this series as Dracula, the role that made him famous. Chick Young (Bud) and Wilbur Gray (Lou), are delivery men who have to deliver the suspected body of Dracula and the Frankenstein monster (Strange), to Mr. McDougal's (Ferguson), House of Horrors. As it would turn out, Wilbur keeps seeing all the scary stuff, while Chick thinks Wilbur is seeing things as usual. What they both do not know is Wilbur's hot new scientist girlfriend, Sandra (Aubert), works for Dracula (albeit under mind control), and wants to remove Wilbur's brain and put it inside the Frankenstein monster. There is no explanation as to how this comes about considering we saw both Dracula and the monster die (?) in House of Dracula (1945). Another thing not explained very well is the arrival of Talbot (Chaney), who has been chasing Dracula and the Monster all over the world and comes to town in an attempt to stop him, but how will he do it if he was cured of his lyncanthropic condition? Oh wait, he still is The Wolfman. None of that happened in the last film too, I guess. It seems Universal thought the last two films sucked too so they pretty much swept them under the carpet and everything is back to normal. Dracula, The Monster and The Wolfman are all alive and well and ready to kill, but with laughs this time.
Another unexplainable question that pops up is, "how is the Frankenstein Monster talking again"? Yep, you heard it here. The monster returns to talking again and he almost sounds like Lugosi's Ygor from Ghost of Frankenstein (1942). As we recall from that film, the monster receives Ygor's brain and starts talking like Ygor. As we also found out in the next film after that, when the monsters show up again in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943), Bela, who is portraying the monster in that film, is supposed to be talking, but at the last minute all that dialogue was removed by the Producers due to bad audience reactions at test showings. So why no talking in HOF or HOD, but he does in this one? My guess is the Producers still wanted to remove all trace of those last two disasters as if they never happened. Maybe we are to pretend that this film took place before HOF or HOD. Maybe it was a prequel. Your guess is as good as mine.
The special effects in this film are top notch. The bat transformation scene is a cool animated sequence mixed in with Bela razing his cape up in the air like a savage animal. Apparently, this animation was handled by Walter Lance, the man who would give us Woody Woodpecker. The bats look good too and with no strings seen at all. The sets are very cool and the outdoor scenes are executed quite well. This is an interesting thing to notice also. The film feels like it takes place in the Everglades or somewhere in the southeastern United States, much like Son of Dracula (1943), so was this also another indication that HOF and HOD never existed? I think so. The music is perfect for the film and the acting fits in fine with all of the silly chaos. The fight scene between Dracula and the Wolfman is pretty good too. I did notice however, that Talbot was nice enough to dress up in the same clothes that the Wolfman always runs around in, so at least this time ....... there are no arguments on how the Wolfman changes clothes all the time. The Wolfman was a busy guy in all the other films. What a fashion-Nista !!!!
One day on the set, Glenn Strange would slip and break his ankle. Since Chaney was off of work that day the Producers asked him to step up and step in once again. He was dressed up in the Frankenstein monster make-up and costume and become the monster again (his first time since Ghost of Frankenstein in 1942), and saved the day by shooting the classic scene when the monster tosses Sandra out the window of the castle. Chaney was always a cool guy and only wanted to help the production succeed and he did a great job with this.
This is a great film. For what it is supposed to be, it covers all the bases and is executed quite well, except for one glowingly bad mistake seen in the film. As Dracula loses his grip on Sandra, he again tries to put her under his spell in order to make her complete the brain-transplant. Bela moves in closer. Her eyes are heavy and she is completely helpless. He leans into her neck area for the final bite and ..................
Bela is actually quite good in this film. He does his bit as Dracula, but he also interjects a humorous side in the film that sounds like he is humoring everybody. Silly things abound all over the film, but Bela gives a performance that believably conveys to the audience that this is what Dracula would do if he was caught in the middle of all this silly chaos. It would be Bela's last starring role in a major motion picture. His career and his life would take a major dip after this and he would die penniless eight years later in 1956.
This film is on the AFI's top 100 greatest comedies of all time. It was the end of an era and things began to change in Hollywood after this movie came out. The monsters would disappear and not show up again for 10 years in England when the great Hammer Film Studios released Curse of Frankenstein (1957), in glorious color and this new vision would carry the monsters into the 1970s, albeit in Europe and without the Universal flag. Boris Karloff was never asked to take the role as the monster for this film, but he did help promote the film in a handful of promotional stills aimed at helping garner interest. However, in Bud and Lou's next "Meet" film, that would come out the following year, Karloff would be part of the title role in Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff (1949). Bud and Lou would also gain new fame with their popular TV show that came out in the early 1950s. They would also "Meet" The Invisible Man (1951), Dr. Jeckyl and Mr Hyde (also Karloff in 1953), and in their second-to-the-last film they would meet the Mummy in 1955, but by then, even they had run out of gas and would break up two years later in 1957. Their last film would be, Dance with me Henry (1956). Lou passed away of a heart attack three years later in 1959.
This film would be Universal's second highest grossing film of 1948. It became a staple in my Halloween canon almost from the start. It revitalized Bud and Lou's career and added to the iconic atmosphere that Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolfman already had. True, audiences began to mature in the 1950s and things like the movie monsters had reached it's climax, but one thing was sure ......... this film needed to be made and I'm glad it was. - Grade: B+
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Phil's Journey Through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" Book: Film #97: The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
With the success of Frankenstein (1931) and success with various other monsters (Dracula, Invisible Man and The Mummy), Universal Pictures set their sites on a sequel for Frankenstein and a "Bride" for the monster and four years later it happened.
97). The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Year: 1935
Run Time: 75 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester and Dwight Frye
I saw this film a few times when I was younger and the DBC never got a chance to see it, but being a fan of Horror movies my whole life it wouldn't be too long until I saw it again on DVD and a few nights ago I watched the film again for maybe the third or fourth time in my life. You could see the magic that Universal had stumbled upon. A cash cow that would endure even today. A franchise in it's early stages that would take the world by storm.
Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection DVD Set on Amazon - Also Includes "Bride of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", "Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman", "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula" and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".
http://www.amazon.com/Frankenstein-Complete-Collection-Boris-Karloff/dp/B00L8QOYG6/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1413219219&sr=1-1&keywords=Frankenstein+legacy
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Frankenstein
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026138/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Mary Shelley Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley
Jack Pierce Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pierce_(makeup_artist)
Universal Studios Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios
Roger Ebert.com Film Review from 1999:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bride-of-frankenstein
Turner Classic Movies Articles:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/69663/Bride-of-Frankenstein/articles.html
As I did my research on this film I noticed something interesting. That since the time this was released many film critics and historians would call this film one of those sequels that is better than the original film itself. I don't think I can go that far. I'm not afraid to say they are equally as good, but to say this one is better? I don't think so.
It is true that the film manages to capture that innocence that the Monster possesses. You can tell the producers spent more money on this one. That many more lavish sets and more characters play a large part in the film. There also is an amazing attempt at capturing the 1935 insecurities of a nation that still worried about secularization and sexual tension. It turns out that right after the release of this film the censors went nuts. So the film is a lightning rod for pushing the envelope and making some bold statements about culture, spiritualism and the human experience. It does explore the child-like nature of the monster and this film also took Karloff to another level by giving him dialogue that the creature would learn from his lonely blind friend who he stumbles across in the woods. The film also explores the life and the inspiration that influenced Mary Shelley (Lanchester), when she wrote her novel Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus in 1818. But, for me, the most compelling side-story that makes The Bride of Frankenstein so interesting to watch is the back-story of Colin Clive. As I mentioned at the end of my Frankenstein (1931) post, Colin Clive stole the show and was the best part of the first film.
He returns for the second film, connived into making another monster by Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger), but Clive had some baggage by the time he got to this film. Clive would enjoy new-found fame as Henry Frankenstein in the first film. His energy and strength played a huge roll in how he executed the character and made us believe that he was a genius, God-playing scientist on the verge of insanity, who found his sanity in his new wife Elizabeth (played in this film by Hobson). Yes, it's true that the person who most benefited from the first film was Karloff, but it could have been a launching pad for Clive too. He was only 31 years old when he did Frankenstein and could have taken that career to the stars, but it wouldn't be. Clive suffered from tuberculosis and had chronic alcoholism issues, plus a bad leg that kept the alcoholism raging. There was also talk that he was gay or bisexual and his wife was a lesbian, so they had an interesting relationship (of course, this kind of thing is not an issue today, but I'm sure you can imagine how tough it was to deal with and hide back in the 1930s ..... if it was true, which most reports I read say it was not, but it was there). So, you add all of these things into the mix and you can probably see where this is going. He did enjoy a few years of leading man roles between 1931-1935, but once he got to Bride of Frankenstein you could see the toll it was taking. His bum-leg played a large part in this film. If you notice most of his scenes are lying down or sitting or shot from the waist up. That's because he could barely walk on the bad leg and some reports said he was so drunk filming his movies that the stage-hands had to hold him up for certain shots. What I noticed the most in this film was the fact that the strength and energy that he had in the first film was reduced to a crying, wussy, weak little man in this film. His character was reduced to a point where he really didn't even need to be in the movie, but it was nice having him there to bridge the two films together. In fact, along with Karloff, a couple characters and familiar faces returned for this film, but they were mostly character actors who played the villagers that they brought back from the first film, but the bridge from the first film to the second film worked (especially since the script picks up about an hour after the last film ended). Either way, I was annoyed at how Clive's character became such a pussy, but as you read more about the film the more you understand. The complications with the tuberculosis, alcoholism and the pain would eventually take its toll. Clive would die 2 years later in 1937 at the age of 37 and we would never know how big he could have been.
What really kills this film for my money is the bad insertion of comedy-relief sprinkled throughout the film. It mostly came from the mouth of Una O'Connor who played Minnie, the annoying villager lady, who would prance around screaming and making funny faces every time the monster was in the area and it was just annoying and unfunny as possibly could be. It couldn't have been acceptable in 1935? Could it? I hope not. It killed parts of this film for me. If we are going to present something serious, let's stick to it. All these insertions felt forced and contrived.
All in all, this is again a masterpiece in early film. The mood, the artistry, the technical achievements, the acting, even the crazy idea that Mary Shelley looks just like the Bride (oh geez, spoiler alert, but this film is 79 years old and if you didn't know that by now for shame on you). It truly is a great film to watch. The story of the monster and his blind peasant friend is brilliant. The introduction and establishment of Dr. Pretorius is very cool, although the explanation of his experiments seemed kind of silly and not believable at all (little people he grew from skin tissue that he has living in little bottles was a stretch). The monster learning to speak is quite good and there isn't a dull moment. As I said before, comparing this to the original and saying it was better is a little bit of a stretch. For me the first one was the masterpiece and this one is a masterpiece, but with too much money and too much pop-culture thrown in, but still something that is great fun.
Phil's Grade: B+
So, here we are. As I mentioned in my Dracula (1931) post I wanted to explore all 12 of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolfman Universal Pictures Monster Series and of course, not all of these films made the 1001 Movie List. So, the next film on the 1001 Movie List is The Wolfman (1941 - #153), but I also wanted to talk a little about the films that came between Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Wolfman. So, if you ever wanted to do this yourself I would watch Dracula (1931) first, Frankenstein (1931) next and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) third. Here are the next group of films to watch on your way to The Wolfman (1941):
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Year: 1936
Run Time: 71 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Lambert Hillyer
Starring: Otto Kruger, Gloria Holden, Marguerite Churchill, Gilbert Emery, Irving Pichel and Edward Van Sloan
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/E_2YyzNAT98
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027545/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula%27s_Daughter
Gloria Holden Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Holden
This film, very loosely based on a Bram Stoker short story named Dracula's Assistant, that was finally published by his widow in 1914, starts off immediately after the events seen in Dracula (1931). Since the short story and this film didn't involve anything with Dracula himself, no signs of Bela Lugosi are seen in this film, but to bridge the gap between the two films and in order to have them look like they were part of the same universe, my hero from the first film, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing returns for this film. Universal always had plans to involve Bela, mostly through flashback scenes involving Dracula and his early days in the 14th Century, but that eventually would fall through the cracks and he was written out. It seems this film went through a lot of re-writes, mostly due to the censors over-sensitive feelings involving lesbianism and Drac's Daughter Marya's thirst for torture and it was changed many times until they finally settled on this final product. It also sounds like the script wasn't completed before filming started. One really cool version has Van Helsing returning to Dracula's castle to kill the three vampire chicks from the first movie and he accidentally misses a hidden fourth coffin that has Marya in it. That idea was scrapped and this final version, albeit, not as great, does actually attack an idea that is actually pretty believable and needed to be addressed. How does a man (Van Helsing), explain to the world why he drove a stake through a man's heart in a world that doesn't believe in vampires? So, this film starts off where Van Helsing just finished killing Dracula and he walks out of the room and is arrested for murder and taken to Scottland Yard.
Meanwhile, a new lady appears in town, Marya (Holden). Marya gets her hands on Daddy's body and burns it up hoping that it will release her from her vampiric attributes, but as it turns out she has no luck and turns her attentions on psychiatry and trying to curb her "addiction". Unfortunately, that turns out to be tough too and the horror and drama ensues with Van Helsing finally getting the trust that he deserves and the battle begins.
Again, another film, which also over the first 30 years since the film came out (it has been scrutinized a lot more in recent years for it's way over-the-top acting and dragging script), was hailed by the early critics and historians as being better than the first film and that is just plain crazy. Right of the bat, while the cops take Van Helsing away, the movie takes a bad turn, when we get a look inside Dracula's coffin of a really bad Bela mannequin. My research has told me that Bela actually made three times more money for just being molded into a wax dummy for this film than he made for the entire first film, plus the Universal executives felt he deserved a little cash for inconveniences involving an ever-changing script and since Bela did the first film for lunch money and a big break, he was now a star and Universal wanted to keep him happy, so congats' to Bela for getting good cash for nothing. I do not know if this is really true or not, because if you ask me, the dummy in the coffin looked nothing like Bela and it probably would have been better if they didn't show it at all, because it does knock the integrity of the film right off of it's tracks early, but everything I have read says it is true and, I guess, it was just a bad dummy. What also kills the film is this great idea of putting Van Helsing on trial, possibly the death penalty and then acceptance, is handled badly and the cool, tough, old guy hero from the first film is reduced to an old man, who wanders around the film saying lines with his cool accent. And, that is about it. Van Helsing gets wasted in this film.
With that already simmering in my head, the film moves onto the plight of Marya. How she accepts her fate. How she runs into her psychiatric friend, Jeffrey (Kruger) and his jealous assistant, Janet (Churchill - why he has eyes for Holden over Churchill is beyond me, because Churchill is very cute, I didn't believe that either), and we meet Marya's evil assistant Sandor (Pichel) and the man trying to convict Van Helsing, Sir Basil Humphrey (Emery). Holden gives a very convincing performance as Marya, but from the sounds of things, that may have been an accident. Some of my research indicates that she hated horror films and felt that they were below her. She also was terrified of type-casting and already noticed what it was doing to Bela in just five short years, so she was fearful of that happening to her if she did horror. So! She may have been doing her lines as an angry, uninterested, Universal employee. Either way, it works.
This film does have an opportunity to be great. Even though it is not a very special effects laden film, the scenes that do require effects look pretty good (the burning scene is cool). They actually do return to Transyvania and use some of the original set-pieces and outdoor locals from the first film. A good scene involving Holden and up-and-coming actress Nan Grey has the vampire luring an unsuspecting runaway into her home, asking her to pose for her painting and then attacking (albeit off-camera), but this is the scene that sets the tone, giving this film it's identity and driving the censors crazy with it's latent lesbian insinuations. But, if you add in the wasting of Van Helsing, the nonchalant attitude of Holden, a cast of over-actors, a script that starts off good and sputters (Ok, now can I say, "Vampires and psychiatry - come on" - Don't really care if this film inspired Ann Rice, it still was silly), the absence of Lugosi and a let-down of an ending, it amazes me that anyone would say this was better than the first one - BS! - Grade: C
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Year: 1939
Run Time: 99 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Rowland V. Lee
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Josephine Hutchinson and Lionel Atwill
Short Clip on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/iMzbgLftYro?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031951/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Of_Frankenstein
Behind-The-Scenes Photos on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/KdwoJkOmtAM?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
Rivals: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/T-IKpz--YMk
Basil Rathbone Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Rathbone
It is true that Mel Brooks got most of his material for Young Frankenstein (1974), from this film. Gene Wilder's Dr. Frankenstein is clearly modeled after Basil Rathbone's Wolf Frankenstein and you can see how Lionel Atwill's wounded ex-soldier Krogh could easily be subjected to a caricature of itself 35 years later, but I feel for this film, being as it was 1939, those pieces removed from the film and satirised, are the strongest points to the film. I also want to make a note that this film was originally going to be in Technicolor, but after a few test shots were taken it was agreed that the film should stay in Black and White. The producers probably already noticed back then that the green hue make-up did look a little silly, as noted in Young Frankenstein (1974).
Universal Pictures 1939 Color-Test on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/g3f-zm2jyFo?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
I will also go out on a limb and confess that Son of Frankenstein (1939) is my most favorite of the "trilogy". I use that word loosely, because there would be more Frankenstein films after this, but these first three Frankenstein films are the original "trilogy". The quality and tone would take a serious turn after this film.
Set 25 years after Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Henry Frankenstein's son, Wolf (Rathbone), is enticed by his father's past and coerced by the evil Ygor (Lugosi), to return to Frankenstein Castle in an attempt to save the life of the Monster, who Ygor found in a coma under Wolf's father's laboratory and the horror and the drama ensues. Universal wasted no time finally pairing up Karloff and Lugosi in a genuine Frankenstein film (they already did a couple of other films together, but this was the first time they got together for a big budget Classic Monster film), plus you throw in Rathbone and Atwill and you have an amazing group of actors assembled for the final curtain call for Karloff, as the monster. This film would be hailed as Bela Lugosi's crowning acting achievement. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Ygor. In fact, the best part of this movie is the acting. Rathbone gives a perfectly excellent performance as a egotistical genius with a good heart. A loving father and husband, who just wanted to make life better for his family's name, who also gets caught playing God, whooops. Watching him running around the house searching for the Monster, protecting his son, dodging Ygor's treachery and having to give explanations to Krogh, while keeping a straight face is fantastic. As they did with "Bride", they kept with the tradition of muttering the words "it's alive" and it was used beautifully in this one. Karloff came back for one final Frankenstein appearance, his third and you could clearly tell he had it figured out.
For me, this one was a streamlined version of the first two films. The first two are masterpieces. They are cinematic and technical achievements, as well as politically and culturally charged commentaries on the world we live in. They are linchpins that created a sub-genre (monster movies), that endures to today. What the first two films did the third one added the cream on the top, by streamlining it with great acting and a script that covered everything. The technical achievements and the cinematic devices are there too. The most eye-popping being the way Director, Rowland V. Lee, Art Director, Jack Otterson and the Director of Photography, George Robinson set up the scenes inside the castle. Not, the creepy parts of the castle, but the one-dimensional, abstract, bare-wall areas of the kitchen and dining room areas. It was very plain but gave the feeling of loneliness. It screamed at the audience that this bland safe area of the house could still imbue danger and loneliness. That these people are not in a home that they should be in and danger lurks in the dungeon or the laboratory or even inside the walls. - Grade: A-
Now we can finally move onto The Wolfman (1941).
97). The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Run Time: 75 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: James Whale
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, Elsa Lanchester and Dwight Frye
I saw this film a few times when I was younger and the DBC never got a chance to see it, but being a fan of Horror movies my whole life it wouldn't be too long until I saw it again on DVD and a few nights ago I watched the film again for maybe the third or fourth time in my life. You could see the magic that Universal had stumbled upon. A cash cow that would endure even today. A franchise in it's early stages that would take the world by storm.
Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection DVD Set on Amazon - Also Includes "Bride of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", "Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman", "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula" and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".
http://www.amazon.com/Frankenstein-Complete-Collection-Boris-Karloff/dp/B00L8QOYG6/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1413219219&sr=1-1&keywords=Frankenstein+legacy
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Frankenstein
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026138/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Mary Shelley Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley
Jack Pierce Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pierce_(makeup_artist)
Universal Studios Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Studios
Roger Ebert.com Film Review from 1999:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bride-of-frankenstein
Turner Classic Movies Articles:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/69663/Bride-of-Frankenstein/articles.html
As I did my research on this film I noticed something interesting. That since the time this was released many film critics and historians would call this film one of those sequels that is better than the original film itself. I don't think I can go that far. I'm not afraid to say they are equally as good, but to say this one is better? I don't think so.
It is true that the film manages to capture that innocence that the Monster possesses. You can tell the producers spent more money on this one. That many more lavish sets and more characters play a large part in the film. There also is an amazing attempt at capturing the 1935 insecurities of a nation that still worried about secularization and sexual tension. It turns out that right after the release of this film the censors went nuts. So the film is a lightning rod for pushing the envelope and making some bold statements about culture, spiritualism and the human experience. It does explore the child-like nature of the monster and this film also took Karloff to another level by giving him dialogue that the creature would learn from his lonely blind friend who he stumbles across in the woods. The film also explores the life and the inspiration that influenced Mary Shelley (Lanchester), when she wrote her novel Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus in 1818. But, for me, the most compelling side-story that makes The Bride of Frankenstein so interesting to watch is the back-story of Colin Clive. As I mentioned at the end of my Frankenstein (1931) post, Colin Clive stole the show and was the best part of the first film.
He returns for the second film, connived into making another monster by Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger), but Clive had some baggage by the time he got to this film. Clive would enjoy new-found fame as Henry Frankenstein in the first film. His energy and strength played a huge roll in how he executed the character and made us believe that he was a genius, God-playing scientist on the verge of insanity, who found his sanity in his new wife Elizabeth (played in this film by Hobson). Yes, it's true that the person who most benefited from the first film was Karloff, but it could have been a launching pad for Clive too. He was only 31 years old when he did Frankenstein and could have taken that career to the stars, but it wouldn't be. Clive suffered from tuberculosis and had chronic alcoholism issues, plus a bad leg that kept the alcoholism raging. There was also talk that he was gay or bisexual and his wife was a lesbian, so they had an interesting relationship (of course, this kind of thing is not an issue today, but I'm sure you can imagine how tough it was to deal with and hide back in the 1930s ..... if it was true, which most reports I read say it was not, but it was there). So, you add all of these things into the mix and you can probably see where this is going. He did enjoy a few years of leading man roles between 1931-1935, but once he got to Bride of Frankenstein you could see the toll it was taking. His bum-leg played a large part in this film. If you notice most of his scenes are lying down or sitting or shot from the waist up. That's because he could barely walk on the bad leg and some reports said he was so drunk filming his movies that the stage-hands had to hold him up for certain shots. What I noticed the most in this film was the fact that the strength and energy that he had in the first film was reduced to a crying, wussy, weak little man in this film. His character was reduced to a point where he really didn't even need to be in the movie, but it was nice having him there to bridge the two films together. In fact, along with Karloff, a couple characters and familiar faces returned for this film, but they were mostly character actors who played the villagers that they brought back from the first film, but the bridge from the first film to the second film worked (especially since the script picks up about an hour after the last film ended). Either way, I was annoyed at how Clive's character became such a pussy, but as you read more about the film the more you understand. The complications with the tuberculosis, alcoholism and the pain would eventually take its toll. Clive would die 2 years later in 1937 at the age of 37 and we would never know how big he could have been.
What really kills this film for my money is the bad insertion of comedy-relief sprinkled throughout the film. It mostly came from the mouth of Una O'Connor who played Minnie, the annoying villager lady, who would prance around screaming and making funny faces every time the monster was in the area and it was just annoying and unfunny as possibly could be. It couldn't have been acceptable in 1935? Could it? I hope not. It killed parts of this film for me. If we are going to present something serious, let's stick to it. All these insertions felt forced and contrived.
All in all, this is again a masterpiece in early film. The mood, the artistry, the technical achievements, the acting, even the crazy idea that Mary Shelley looks just like the Bride (oh geez, spoiler alert, but this film is 79 years old and if you didn't know that by now for shame on you). It truly is a great film to watch. The story of the monster and his blind peasant friend is brilliant. The introduction and establishment of Dr. Pretorius is very cool, although the explanation of his experiments seemed kind of silly and not believable at all (little people he grew from skin tissue that he has living in little bottles was a stretch). The monster learning to speak is quite good and there isn't a dull moment. As I said before, comparing this to the original and saying it was better is a little bit of a stretch. For me the first one was the masterpiece and this one is a masterpiece, but with too much money and too much pop-culture thrown in, but still something that is great fun.
Phil's Grade: B+
So, here we are. As I mentioned in my Dracula (1931) post I wanted to explore all 12 of the Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolfman Universal Pictures Monster Series and of course, not all of these films made the 1001 Movie List. So, the next film on the 1001 Movie List is The Wolfman (1941 - #153), but I also wanted to talk a little about the films that came between Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and The Wolfman. So, if you ever wanted to do this yourself I would watch Dracula (1931) first, Frankenstein (1931) next and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) third. Here are the next group of films to watch on your way to The Wolfman (1941):
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Run Time: 71 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Lambert Hillyer
Starring: Otto Kruger, Gloria Holden, Marguerite Churchill, Gilbert Emery, Irving Pichel and Edward Van Sloan
Trailer on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/E_2YyzNAT98
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027545/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula%27s_Daughter
Gloria Holden Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Holden
This film, very loosely based on a Bram Stoker short story named Dracula's Assistant, that was finally published by his widow in 1914, starts off immediately after the events seen in Dracula (1931). Since the short story and this film didn't involve anything with Dracula himself, no signs of Bela Lugosi are seen in this film, but to bridge the gap between the two films and in order to have them look like they were part of the same universe, my hero from the first film, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing returns for this film. Universal always had plans to involve Bela, mostly through flashback scenes involving Dracula and his early days in the 14th Century, but that eventually would fall through the cracks and he was written out. It seems this film went through a lot of re-writes, mostly due to the censors over-sensitive feelings involving lesbianism and Drac's Daughter Marya's thirst for torture and it was changed many times until they finally settled on this final product. It also sounds like the script wasn't completed before filming started. One really cool version has Van Helsing returning to Dracula's castle to kill the three vampire chicks from the first movie and he accidentally misses a hidden fourth coffin that has Marya in it. That idea was scrapped and this final version, albeit, not as great, does actually attack an idea that is actually pretty believable and needed to be addressed. How does a man (Van Helsing), explain to the world why he drove a stake through a man's heart in a world that doesn't believe in vampires? So, this film starts off where Van Helsing just finished killing Dracula and he walks out of the room and is arrested for murder and taken to Scottland Yard.
Meanwhile, a new lady appears in town, Marya (Holden). Marya gets her hands on Daddy's body and burns it up hoping that it will release her from her vampiric attributes, but as it turns out she has no luck and turns her attentions on psychiatry and trying to curb her "addiction". Unfortunately, that turns out to be tough too and the horror and drama ensues with Van Helsing finally getting the trust that he deserves and the battle begins.
Again, another film, which also over the first 30 years since the film came out (it has been scrutinized a lot more in recent years for it's way over-the-top acting and dragging script), was hailed by the early critics and historians as being better than the first film and that is just plain crazy. Right of the bat, while the cops take Van Helsing away, the movie takes a bad turn, when we get a look inside Dracula's coffin of a really bad Bela mannequin. My research has told me that Bela actually made three times more money for just being molded into a wax dummy for this film than he made for the entire first film, plus the Universal executives felt he deserved a little cash for inconveniences involving an ever-changing script and since Bela did the first film for lunch money and a big break, he was now a star and Universal wanted to keep him happy, so congats' to Bela for getting good cash for nothing. I do not know if this is really true or not, because if you ask me, the dummy in the coffin looked nothing like Bela and it probably would have been better if they didn't show it at all, because it does knock the integrity of the film right off of it's tracks early, but everything I have read says it is true and, I guess, it was just a bad dummy. What also kills the film is this great idea of putting Van Helsing on trial, possibly the death penalty and then acceptance, is handled badly and the cool, tough, old guy hero from the first film is reduced to an old man, who wanders around the film saying lines with his cool accent. And, that is about it. Van Helsing gets wasted in this film.
With that already simmering in my head, the film moves onto the plight of Marya. How she accepts her fate. How she runs into her psychiatric friend, Jeffrey (Kruger) and his jealous assistant, Janet (Churchill - why he has eyes for Holden over Churchill is beyond me, because Churchill is very cute, I didn't believe that either), and we meet Marya's evil assistant Sandor (Pichel) and the man trying to convict Van Helsing, Sir Basil Humphrey (Emery). Holden gives a very convincing performance as Marya, but from the sounds of things, that may have been an accident. Some of my research indicates that she hated horror films and felt that they were below her. She also was terrified of type-casting and already noticed what it was doing to Bela in just five short years, so she was fearful of that happening to her if she did horror. So! She may have been doing her lines as an angry, uninterested, Universal employee. Either way, it works.
This film does have an opportunity to be great. Even though it is not a very special effects laden film, the scenes that do require effects look pretty good (the burning scene is cool). They actually do return to Transyvania and use some of the original set-pieces and outdoor locals from the first film. A good scene involving Holden and up-and-coming actress Nan Grey has the vampire luring an unsuspecting runaway into her home, asking her to pose for her painting and then attacking (albeit off-camera), but this is the scene that sets the tone, giving this film it's identity and driving the censors crazy with it's latent lesbian insinuations. But, if you add in the wasting of Van Helsing, the nonchalant attitude of Holden, a cast of over-actors, a script that starts off good and sputters (Ok, now can I say, "Vampires and psychiatry - come on" - Don't really care if this film inspired Ann Rice, it still was silly), the absence of Lugosi and a let-down of an ending, it amazes me that anyone would say this was better than the first one - BS! - Grade: C
Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Run Time: 99 mins
Genre: Horror, Drama
Format: Standard 4:3, B&W, Sound
Director: Rowland V. Lee
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Josephine Hutchinson and Lionel Atwill
Short Clip on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/iMzbgLftYro?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
IMDB.com Entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031951/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Of_Frankenstein
Behind-The-Scenes Photos on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/KdwoJkOmtAM?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
Rivals: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/T-IKpz--YMk
Basil Rathbone Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Rathbone
It is true that Mel Brooks got most of his material for Young Frankenstein (1974), from this film. Gene Wilder's Dr. Frankenstein is clearly modeled after Basil Rathbone's Wolf Frankenstein and you can see how Lionel Atwill's wounded ex-soldier Krogh could easily be subjected to a caricature of itself 35 years later, but I feel for this film, being as it was 1939, those pieces removed from the film and satirised, are the strongest points to the film. I also want to make a note that this film was originally going to be in Technicolor, but after a few test shots were taken it was agreed that the film should stay in Black and White. The producers probably already noticed back then that the green hue make-up did look a little silly, as noted in Young Frankenstein (1974).
Universal Pictures 1939 Color-Test on Youtube:
http://youtu.be/g3f-zm2jyFo?list=PL7VKzPVljvBEIEouJdfKjP3yCkPRNQumZ
I will also go out on a limb and confess that Son of Frankenstein (1939) is my most favorite of the "trilogy". I use that word loosely, because there would be more Frankenstein films after this, but these first three Frankenstein films are the original "trilogy". The quality and tone would take a serious turn after this film.
Set 25 years after Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Henry Frankenstein's son, Wolf (Rathbone), is enticed by his father's past and coerced by the evil Ygor (Lugosi), to return to Frankenstein Castle in an attempt to save the life of the Monster, who Ygor found in a coma under Wolf's father's laboratory and the horror and the drama ensues. Universal wasted no time finally pairing up Karloff and Lugosi in a genuine Frankenstein film (they already did a couple of other films together, but this was the first time they got together for a big budget Classic Monster film), plus you throw in Rathbone and Atwill and you have an amazing group of actors assembled for the final curtain call for Karloff, as the monster. This film would be hailed as Bela Lugosi's crowning acting achievement. He should have been nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Ygor. In fact, the best part of this movie is the acting. Rathbone gives a perfectly excellent performance as a egotistical genius with a good heart. A loving father and husband, who just wanted to make life better for his family's name, who also gets caught playing God, whooops. Watching him running around the house searching for the Monster, protecting his son, dodging Ygor's treachery and having to give explanations to Krogh, while keeping a straight face is fantastic. As they did with "Bride", they kept with the tradition of muttering the words "it's alive" and it was used beautifully in this one. Karloff came back for one final Frankenstein appearance, his third and you could clearly tell he had it figured out.
For me, this one was a streamlined version of the first two films. The first two are masterpieces. They are cinematic and technical achievements, as well as politically and culturally charged commentaries on the world we live in. They are linchpins that created a sub-genre (monster movies), that endures to today. What the first two films did the third one added the cream on the top, by streamlining it with great acting and a script that covered everything. The technical achievements and the cinematic devices are there too. The most eye-popping being the way Director, Rowland V. Lee, Art Director, Jack Otterson and the Director of Photography, George Robinson set up the scenes inside the castle. Not, the creepy parts of the castle, but the one-dimensional, abstract, bare-wall areas of the kitchen and dining room areas. It was very plain but gave the feeling of loneliness. It screamed at the audience that this bland safe area of the house could still imbue danger and loneliness. That these people are not in a home that they should be in and danger lurks in the dungeon or the laboratory or even inside the walls. - Grade: A- Now we can finally move onto The Wolfman (1941).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)