Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

[eabaker]

Universal had, essentially, a stock company of character actors. Many of those people have a crazy number of credits, by today's standards, because they would just be plugged into small roles in movie after movie.

[mvp9056]

Gotta say I love Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. It's just such a fun, well made movie and has a consistent story arc from the original Wolfman, and ties back in to the continuing story of the Frankenstein family saga. Both monsters get almost equal focus. And the reason they're brought together makes sense. I would even say the fight at the end is the least interesting part of the movie (though still fun), because the rest of the plot is that good. IMO it is a template for all Vs. movies: an interesting/entertaining plot does more for the movie than the actual titular fight (looking at you BvS).

[eabaker]

Gotta say I love Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. It's just such a fun, well made movie and has a consistent story arc from the original Wolfman, and ties back in to the continuing story of the Frankenstein family saga. Both monsters get almost equal focus. And the reason they're brought together makes sense. I would even say the fight at the end is the least interesting part of the movie (though still fun), because the rest of the plot is that good. IMO it is a template for all Vs. movies: an interesting/entertaining plot does more for the movie than the actual titular fight (looking at you BvS).

Yeah, I love that movie; it's one I can re-watch regularly and always get engaged. Even some of the sillier elements, like Dr. Mannering's sudden turn to mad scientist to facilitate the final fight, work for me at a pure entertainment level.

[Jeff-Goldblum2]

Just watched House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. Interesting that between the two monsters in the titles of these movies, the monster that seems to get the most focus and the one with the main overall story arc is The Wolf Man. I guess that is down to The Wolf Man being the latest monster at the time and Lon Chaney Jr. being the latest star.

[kingkevzilla88]

I grow up watching these films on video. I've been collecting the action figures based on them since I was in primary school. Frankenstein is my favorite of them, everything about it works so well the acting, the directing, the writing and the sets. Both Karloff and Colin Clive are fantastic as the monster and doctor.

Dwight Frye doesn't get enough praise for playing Fritz in Frankenstein, and Renfield in Dracula. there times in those films, where he steals them from everyone else.

Is anyone going to be getting that 30 movie blu-ray set that's coming out at the end of the month?

[Maritonic]

I have an undying love for these films, all of them. Some flaws, some perfections.

These films introduced me to one of my all time favorites actors, Bela Lugosi. Though, The Raven will always be my favorite film of his.

I think I'm one of the few people that finds Dracula very overrated.

[mvp9056]

I first came into contact with these movies through airings on cable tv. They would constantly have them on AMC late at night in the nineties/early 2000's. Fright Fest was when they started showing many of the more obscure ones. That snowballed into me renting the dvds from blockbuster (when that was still a thing), then eventually getting the complete legacy collections of all the series. I still own those to this day, though I'm thinking of upgrading to the blu-ray releases some time.

[Maritonic]

I first came into contact with these movies through airings on cable tv. They would constantly have them on AMC late at night in the nineties/early 2000's. Fright Fest was when they started showing many of the more obscure ones. That snowballed into me renting the dvds from blockbuster (when that was still a thing), then eventually getting the complete legacy collections of all the series. I still own those to this day, though I'm thinking of upgrading to the blu-ray releases some time.

The blu rays are worth it. You'd think that with the mass releases, and the affordability of them, that they'd be poorly done. But they're actually gorgeous quality. If you're a fan of these films, I highly recommend picking them up.

[eabaker]

Just watched House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. Interesting that between the two monsters in the titles of these movies, the monster that seems to get the most focus and the one with the main overall story arc is The Wolf Man. I guess that is down to The Wolf Man being the latest monster at the time and Lon Chaney Jr. being the latest star.

I'd attribute that more to the fact that Larry Talbot is an inherently sympathetic character, and can take on a portion of the leading man duties, as well as being able to appear on-screen a lot sans special effects make-up.

Added in 3 minutes 24 seconds:

Dwight Frye doesn't get enough praise for playing Fritz in Frankenstein, and Renfield in Dracula. there times in those films, where he steals them from everyone else.

In my experience, most reviews/essays tend to really emphasize his importance to the effectiveness of Dracula. But, yeah, his performance as Fritz does get overshadowed a lot - and MVP9056 made the same point about Clive earlier in the thread - by how much focus is given to Karloff's groundbreaking take on the monster.

Added in 3 minutes 56 seconds:

I think I'm one of the few people that finds Dracula very overrated.

While Dracula gets rattled off a lot on general lists of classics, as the first generation of "monster kids" (baby boomers who caught these movies on their frequent TV airings in the 50s and who bought the early issues of Famous Monsters) grew up and began writing more scholarly works on them, Dracula really started to be viewed by some as a good first act with an awkward, wooden final hour. I'd say its place in the horror pantheon is something fans still frequently differ on.

Added in 4 minutes 17 seconds:

These films introduced me to one of my all time favorites actors, Bela Lugosi. Though, The Raven will always be my favorite film of his.

That movie is so much fun. It's some of Lugosi's most indulgent scenery-chewing, and it's an absolute delight! "POE, YOU ARE AVENGED!"

[Maritonic]

Dracula has my respect and admiration for it's role in horror history. Also, because of Lugosi, who stole the screen every single second he was on it. However, the lack of any piece of music really shows just how important music is to a film's pulse. But yes, I'd agree with what you said; pretty cool first act, but everything that follows is wooden and rather dull.

The Raven, though, man I could go on and on. "I tear torture out of myself by torturing you!" "What a delicious torture!" "Death is my talisman." As I said, Lugosi is one of my all time favorite actors and I love a lot of his work; The Black Cat, White Zombie, Devil Bat, even Bride of the Monster. But nothing will ever top just the sheer joy I get watching The Raven.

When it comes to Karloff ("Karloff? Side kick? FUCK YOU!"), I found his role in The Mummy much more entertaining than Frankenstein, though I suppose that is no one's fault, given The Monster has no dialogue compared to Imhotep.

I also find The Mummy's Hand to be a better "mummy" film than The Mummy but that's just my personal opinion.

[eabaker]

When it comes to Karloff ("Karloff? Side kick? FUCK YOU!"), I found his role in The Mummy much more entertaining than Frankenstein, though I suppose that is no one's fault, given The Monster has no dialogue compared to Imhotep.

I also find The Mummy's Hand to be a better "mummy" film than The Mummy but that's just my personal opinion.

I cannot pick a favorite among Karloff performances. There are just too many that are too damned good. He is certainly fantastic in The Mummy, and I'm among those who tend to count that movie as basically a tighter, more dynamic remake of Dracula (as well as a pretty clear influence on subsequent adaptations of Dracula, with the introduction of the "re-animated love" story point).

My dad was a huge fan of The Mummy's Hand, and I definitely saw it more times growing up than I did The Mummy (somewhere I also have a copy of a publicity still from the climax that was given to me by Forry Ackerman, although of course he pulled it out of a file cabinet that probably had a zillion copies). It's a damned fun movie, but where The Mummy has grown on me with age, I find myself these days a little impatient with The Mummy's Hand, as it really takes a long time to get where it's going (narratively), and then packs most of its Mummy action into the last ten minutes or so.

I was always a fan of The Mummy's Ghost. Objectively, I know it's not at all the best entry in the series, but John Carradine is just such an enjoyable villain, and I love the downer ending.

[mvp9056]

The Mummy grew on me too as I got older. I used to find it a little boring as a kid, simply for the fact that it didn't have enough actual mummy scenes in it. But now I think it's one of the most sophisticated of the films. It's not so much a straight monster movie, but a dark, moody romance with a villain at the center.

Things like the makeup, the main heroine (Zita is one of the better Universal leading ladies in her performance), and especially the music really gives the film a strong atmosphere. And it sports probably the earliest instance of gore in a film. Now conversely I can't really get into the sequels, as I find them rather dull compared to the original. I'm more a fan of sorcerer type mummies that an emote than shuffling, zombie ones.

[Maritonic]

Agree on The Mummy; when I was younger I found it so boring. But as I've gotten older, I really enjoy it quite a bit and find it to be one of the greater in the series. Much more than it's given credit, especially when compared to Frankenstein or Dracula.

[GodzillaFan1990's]

Wolf Man and Creature from the Black Lagoon are probably my favorites.

[mvp9056]

Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios has an event dedicated to the monsters with a cool promo trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZvARkIl0p8

[Kaiju no Kami]

Dracula has my respect and admiration for it's role in horror history.

While I like Dracula, I don't love it. I hate how they combined Harker and Renfield into one character and we never actually see any of Dracula's forms due to obviously the period and budget. Though, I will say that Philip Glass' score they added to the film makes it so much better to watch. I wish they had given Frankenstein a score too when it came to DVD. It's kind of weird how movies went from no dialog with music to all dialog with no music.

As for Legosi, he's fine, but he's never been what I imagined Dracula to look like. Gary Oldman is so much closer to my ideal Dracula.

I also find The Mummy's Hand to be a better "mummy" film than The Mummy but that's just my personal opinion.

I like The Mummy's Hand, but I don't feel any emotion towards Karis like I do with Imhotep. With Imhotep I feel his tortured nature and his desires while Karis is just a mindless goon. In fact, I prefer the Karis Hammer Films did over the Universal version.

[fred25_ca]

I second people's opinions on Dracula. The book is my favorite book of all time (first read it when i was 8). I've been obsessed with Dracula ever since. But the Lugosi movie never did it for me. I love Lugosi in it and his line "ah what music they make" is perfect. I like the first half or so, even if the lack of fangs, Dracula's wives, etc really hurts it. The second half just isn't good. It was reported that Todd Browning was drunk and was barely on set and that would explain a lot. I also think that had Lon Chaney played the role, we would have ended up with such a creepy design and a much better movie. He always went all in when he made his own makeup. Unfortunately he passed away before the movie was made.

It also doesn't help that Germany had done 10 years ago one of the greatest Dracula adaptation with Nosferatu. Orlock (Dracula) is creepy as hell, something Lugosi was never quite able to do because of his design.
The Dracula Universal series is also the worst of the 6 main series. The first one doesn't quite work. Dracula's daughter somehow decided to butcher the book even more, was dull and didn't bring back Lugosi or Dracula. The son of Dracula didn't fare much better, with a totally miscast Lon Chaney Jr. (even if parts of me enjoy knowing Lon Chaney's son ended up playing the Son of Dracula).

As for the two House movies, Dracula is easily the most disappointing part of them. Carrandine looks closer to Dracula in the book but he's written to be such a weakling. Everything can kill him. There's nothing remotely scary about him.
Imo, the best Dracula movie by Universal is Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein. Why it took Lugosi so long to come back is beyond me. But he totally kills it here and Dracula is for once well written and he commands every scenes he's in.
I'm probably too harsh here but i've always found that the Dracula series can be mostly skipped outside of the first one, which is a shame since the book is so good.

[Maritonic]

It's refreshing to see people agree on Dracula. It always hurts me to speak ill of it due to my love of Lugosi, and my love of the Universal Monsters as a whole. But I have always felt it's the weakest entry of the main monsters and pales in comparison to the others. I'm so glad to see I'm not alone in this, as in horror circles it's always considered the pinnacle of vampire films.

And I agree, Murnau's Nosferatu is definitely a better version. It took me YEARS to accept Coppola's version, but finally with age I've come to enjoy it's style and brutality.

On the topic of "it was done better prior to", I will never be okay with 1943's Phantom of the Opera compared to Lon Chaney's INCREDIBLE version. It is just such a watered down disappointment compared to one of the most incredible pieces of horror film making I've ever seen.

Added in 1 minute 21 seconds:

Imo, the best Dracula movie by Universal is Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein. Why it took Lugosi so long to come back is beyond me. But he totally kills it here and Dracula is for once well written and he commands every scenes he's in.

YES! YES! YES!

Absolutely 100% yes. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was definitely the Universal Monster film that got Dracula right.

[fred25_ca]

Oh yes, agree with Phantom of the Opera. It should have been the Lon Chaney version in the Universal box sets. It was done by Universal and its the definitive version, no contest. I love Claude Rains (he was such a great Invisible man, what a voice!) but he was no Phantom. Lon Chaney's makeup is so iconic, just like Karloff's Frankenstein or Chaney Jr.'s Wolf man.

[Maritonic]

Oh yes, agree with Phantom of the Opera. It should have been the Lon Chaney version in the Universal box sets. It was done by Universal and its the definitive version, no contest. I love Claude Rains (he was such a great Invisible man, what a voice!) but he was no Phantom. Lon Chaney's makeup is so iconic, just like Karloff's Frankenstein or Chaney Jr.'s Wolf man.

Claude Rains' Invisible Man is FANTASTIC! The voice, the malice he conveys, is so fantastic.