Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

For the discussion of non-Toho monster media, tokusatsu franchises, and also for mixed discussion of Toho and non-Toho kaiju media.
Post Reply
edgaguirus
Keizer
Posts: 8563
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by edgaguirus »

Leviarex wrote:Here's a tour of the Universal Monster themed cafe at Universal Studios in Orlando:

There's a place I'd love to check out. I love how films like This Island Earth and Tarantula are included among the classical monsters.

Also, what does Frank think of the coffee there?

coffee....gooood.
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

The strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him.

GojiDog
G-Grasper
Posts: 1223
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by GojiDog »

I need to go to that cafe. I'd have a blast!

Anyways, I thought I'd bring this up. I had conversation with a friend about our favorite horror franchises. His is Nightmare on Elm Street, and that is an acceptable answer, but I made a case for the Frankenstein movies of the classic Universal Period (30s-40s).

My stance is based on how most horror franchises start off with a really strong 1st entry that becomes a classic, and then if you're lucky, you'll get 1 or 2 more really good entries, but then the series devolves into self parody and a shell of what the original was.

With the Frankenstein, they represent the earliest gold standard of horror movies providing the very best of the genre during that time period and to be perfectly honest, it is the only horror series I can think of where I enjoy every single entry. At its worst, the Frankenstein series is enjoyable, and at its best, its high cinematic class. True, they aren't "scary" anymore, but I'd argue that almost all horror movies cease to be scary after the first viewing. That doesn't diminish a movie's ability to fascinate us, entertain us, and inspire us, and the Frankenstein has all of that.

And I have to say: Godzilla is obviously my favorite movie monster of all time, but the Frankenstein Monster isn't too far behind him, and its in large part because of these movies. I'm also amazed how generally not terrible the continuity is from film to film considering the time period these were in where continuity was barely a consideration. I say generally though as by the time Abbot and Costello join the fray, Universal pretty much said F*** it to continuity, they tried for most of the series.

Anyways, here are my thoughts on each film.
Spoiler:
1) The Original Frankenstein film is the one of the most important movies in the genre. Every horror movie centered around reanimating the dead owes itself to this classic. Everything about it is just classic. The laboratory sets, the legendary scene for the Monster's birth, the climactic scene in the burning windmill, and the great performances of Colin Clive and of course, Boris Karloff in his break out performance as the monster all combine to make one of my favorite films of the era. James Whales' direction adds an extra layer of class that elevates the film above what it probably would have been otherwise. Also, I do prefer the film over its novel, mainly because of the sympathy I feel for the mute monster, who feels confused and more a victim of his circumstances.

2) And in what was probably the first case in cinema history of the sequel surpassing the original, Bride of Frankenstein turned out to be probably my favorite of the entire Universal line up. Reuniting Whales, Clive, Karloff, and make up genius Jack Pierce and giving them a bigger budget resulted in a film that was way ahead of its time. This includes having a great film score (at a time when full scores were rare), additional special effects, themes and elements that were daring for the time, and the additions of the wonderfully devilish Dr. Pretorious and Elsa Lanchester as the titular and iconic Bride. I love how the movie took one small element of the original book (The Monster's desire for a mate) that was omitted from the 1st film and got an entire movie out of it. Also, the Monster's development here into an even more tragic figure gives the film a surprising amount of heart (the scene with the Blind Man kills me every time I watch it). It is a little disappointing that The Bride never shows up again in the series...oh what could have been.

3) Son of Frankenstein was a return for the franchise after the regime change at Universal, and it turned out to be a great entry. It doesn't quite get the love that the first two films do, but I think it deserves to be ranked right up their with them. The real gold here is with the wonderful cast. I'm a big Sherlock Holmes nut, so its a treat to see Basil Rathbone as the star of a Frankenstein film, and he does a terrific job. I also love Lionel Atwell's fantastic Inspector character, who is charming, admirable, determined, and tragic as well. And anyone who thinks that Lugosi can only do Dracula would be well served to check this out as his turn as Ygor is fantastic, and arguably the best performance of his career. If there is any fault with the film, this is definitely Karloff's weakest turn as The Monster as he's given the least interesting things to do (also that furry vest looks weird, lol), but everything else around him is so great, that its hard to dwell on it. The climax is particularly wild and is worth a look.

4) Ghost of Frankenstein is one where people can point to and call it a decline of the series from high class film making to total B Movie schlock. I can see that argument. Its the weakest film up to this point by far. It has some weird breaks from continuity with the last film, nothing about it seems as grand as the first 3. However, what it lacks in class, it makes up for in sheer insanity. For one thing, this movie puts The Monster on trial. Yup, they chain him up and put him on trial. Its so silly, I can't help but kind of love it. And I won't spoil the ending, but its absolutely insane. Its bound to leave an impression. This is also the first time Karloff did not play the monster, with Lon Cheney Jr. in the role, and he does an admirable job with all the weird material he's given and having such (literal) big shoes to fill, though he never quite has the heart that the original monster had.

5) Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman is historically significant for being the first time that Universal crossed over two of its big monster stars, making it, as far as I know, the first cinematic crossover ever. Everything you see today with the MCU can be trace its roots back to what Universal did with its monsters back in the day, and I think its worth bringing up. The movie is more of a Wolfman sequel than a Frankenstein one as its Lon Cheney Jr. as Lawrence Talbot who largely carries the film. The graveyard scene detailing the return of The Wolfman is fantastic, and one of the best in any of Universal's movies. We also get the return of Maleva the gypsy woman, a key character from the original Wolfman film. With Cheney playing The Wolfman, its Bela Lugosi getting his turn to play The Monster (which actually makes perfect sense given how the last film ended). Sadly, his performance has been mired in controversy given that much of it was reedit and all dialogue removed (despite the fact that Lugosi absolutely played it right given how the last film's conclusion). I'd love to see a version of this film with Lugosi's performance fully intact so I could judge it myself. Controversy aside, the movie is entertaining and just fun. Its fun to have two monsters, its fun to have them interact, and its fun to watch them fight at the end in an explosive climactic battle. Of Universal's crossover movies, its my personal favorite. It lags a little bit in the middle, but it starts strong and ends strong, and its generally entertaining.

6-7) Next up are the big monster mashes: House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. They are essentially the same movie as they both find fairly convoluted excuses to get The Frankenstein Monster, Dracula, and The Wolfman all in the same movie together. However, in getting them all together, there are some breaks with continuity to make it happen. Also, the movies are a tad messy (HOF in particular feels like its structured like two short films that got spliced together). Narrative issues aside, it is once again colorful and fun to have all these monsters together. House of Frankenstein does give us Karloff in a Mad Scientist role, which is actually neat to have if he isn't going to play The Monster. John Carradine is Dracula and...uh...he's no Lugosi, sorry, but once again, its Lon Cheney Jr who carries the load as he wonderfully plays Lawrence Talbot/The Wolfman. Probably the most satisfying element of these movies is that Talbot kinda gets a happy ending when its all said and done. The Monster in both films is played by the appropriately named Glenn Strange and while he isn't given much in the way of emotional material, he does physically carry the role well and looks imposing. Neither film is a classic, and if I was going to make a list of recommendations or must sees for the Universal Monster films, these films wouldn't get much consideration from me. However, if you're a completest or just want to spend more time with these monsters, then they are fun and colorful looks at them. They both kind of work as like a abridged version of this entire era for Horror films.

8) By the end of the era, the trend had moved the monsters into the realm of comedy by interacting them with the legendary comedy duo of Abbot and Costello for some good ol' spoofs. The first of these films was Abbot and Costello Meets Frankenstein, a weird and wacky crossover of the best that comedy and horror had to offer at the time. Continuity is completely disregarded for this one, so I kind of see it as being separate from the main canon. I also consider this to be the best of the Abbot and Costello Monster films. Not only because it was the first, but because it was the only one where the Monsters themselves were played completely straight. We get Glenn Strange once again playing The Monster, Lon Cheney Jr. once again playing The Wolf Man, and Bela Lugosi (thankfully) returning to play Dracula. And to their credit, they all act as they would in any other monster movie of the time period. What this does is create a great contrast between the monsters and the bumbling antics of their co-stars. To me, its funnier if the Monsters are a legit threat to Abbot and Costello, and it makes for some very fun set pieces. Bud and Lou's reactions are funnier because the Monsters are as terrifying as they'd be in all previous films. If the monsters are a joke (kind of like how The Mummy was treated in that Abbot and Costello film) then it doesn't quite land as well. Also, can you believe that this film is the only time we get Lon Cheney Jr as The Wolf Man and Lugosi as Dracula interacting and even fighting each other? Hard to believe. Now if we could have just gotten Boris Karloff as The Monster again, it would have been the perfect monster party, haha.
So 8 movies that run the gamut from high class cinema, to romance, to horror, to wild spectacle, to spoofs, and through it all, The Frankenstein Series didn't produce one movie that I didn't enjoy. The "House of" films represent the series at its weakest, but even those are fun. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have some of the best movies of the time period, with a classic original, a superior sequel, and an epic 3rd entry.

When thinking about a horror series, I can't think of another one that's had that many movies and I can honestly say I enjoyed them all. Nightmare? Oddly enough, I love all the ones with Helen Langenkamp in them, and kind of ignore the rest. Halloween? The more they explained about Myers, the more watered down and less interesting he became. Friday the 13th? Peaks and valleys. Its always either a lot of fun or terrible.

But Frankenstein is consistently entertaining. And this isn't blind love for the Universal monster pictures either as I don't have nearly this much appreciation for The Mummy series (which after the Karloff original, which is in of itself Dracula with a different coat of paint, they basically just gave us the same movie 4 times in a row), The Invisible _____ series (which was more of a recurring gimmick than an individual series), or even Dracula (which really struggled replacing Lugosi after the first film). In the Universal canon, Frankenstein's Monster stands head and shoulders above the rest, both physically, and in terms of film quality, which never ceased to be entertaining.
White Male Genocide is necessary.

Kill all white men.

User avatar
Vakanai
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:27 am

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Vakanai »

The Spanish version of Dracula is better shot. The English language Dracula however is better acted, and ultimately that makes it the better movie.

And that's not knocking the Spanish language actors either, many of whom turned in great performances. There was just no topping Dwight Frye and Bella Lugosi. Especially Bela. And if Dracula isn't well acted, then no amount of cinematography is going to fix it.

Added in 13 minutes 34 seconds:
Unpopular opinion - I vastly prefer the first Frankenstein over the Bride of Frankenstein as far as just films go.
Although obviously I prefer Bride if we're talking which monster you'd want to ask on a date, hubba hubba!
I unapologetically, wholeheartedly, and without a doubt hate Godzilla vs Kong.

User avatar
eabaker
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13758
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by eabaker »

GojiDog wrote:So 8 movies that run the gamut from high class cinema, to romance, to horror, to wild spectacle, to spoofs, and through it all, The Frankenstein Series didn't produce one movie that I didn't enjoy. The "House of" films represent the series at its weakest, but even those are fun. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have some of the best movies of the time period, with a classic original, a superior sequel, and an epic 3rd entry.

When thinking about a horror series, I can't think of another one that's had that many movies and I can honestly say I enjoyed them all. Nightmare? Oddly enough, I love all the ones with Helen Langenkamp in them, and kind of ignore the rest. Halloween? The more they explained about Myers, the more watered down and less interesting he became. Friday the 13th? Peaks and valleys. Its always either a lot of fun or terrible.

But Frankenstein is consistently entertaining. And this isn't blind love for the Universal monster pictures either as I don't have nearly this much appreciation for The Mummy series (which after the Karloff original, which is in of itself Dracula with a different coat of paint, they basically just gave us the same movie 4 times in a row), The Invisible _____ series (which was more of a recurring gimmick than an individual series), or even Dracula (which really struggled replacing Lugosi after the first film). In the Universal canon, Frankenstein's Monster stands head and shoulders above the rest, both physically, and in terms of film quality, which never ceased to be entertaining.
Back in 2014 I wrote a piece on why I think Universal's Frankenstein movies are still on the whole the best horror series ever. Unfortunately, the pictures are all offline now, but the article is still up: https://www.theblood-shed.com/is-univer ... best-ever/
Tokyo, a smoldering memorial to the unknown, an unknown which at this very moment still prevails and could at any time lash out with its terrible destruction anywhere else in the world.

User avatar
JAGzilla
Sazer
Posts: 11820
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by JAGzilla »

I just got done with The Mummy. I've been putting it off for a while because I didn't expect to like it much; for whatever reason, ancient Egypt and its mummies and curses have just never held much appeal for me. I did, in fact, like it quite a lot. It moves along at a pretty brisk pace, and is never boring. Boris Karloff, unsurprisingly, did an excellent job portraying Imhotep, and I appreciated that Imhotep was a full-blown central character in this version, whereas he felt almost like an afterthought in the Brendan Fraser remake, mostly just jump scares and flashy effects, with an unsympathetic, pure-evil personality. Karloff's version being a desperate man who only does the terrible things he does out of love, and a smaller, far more personal threat, were more effective. Same with his powers; I love the whole sand wall trick, it was beautiful, but Karloff's hypnosis and heart attacks felt more dangerous.

Helen as a damsel in distress that actually saves herself was unexpected and welcome, though it did have the unfortunate side effect of making Frank and Muller feel kind of irrelevant.
"Stop wars and no more accidents. I guess that's all I can ask." -Akio

User avatar
eabaker
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13758
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by eabaker »

JAGzilla wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 7:33 am I just got done with The Mummy. I've been putting it off for a while because I didn't expect to like it much; for whatever reason, ancient Egypt and its mummies and curses have just never held much appeal for me. I did, in fact, like it quite a lot. It moves along at a pretty brisk pace, and is never boring.
Yeah, in a lot of ways it's just Karl Freund showing us how he would have made a tighter, better paced Dracula if he'd been in the director's chair.
Tokyo, a smoldering memorial to the unknown, an unknown which at this very moment still prevails and could at any time lash out with its terrible destruction anywhere else in the world.

User avatar
Spuro
Keizer
Posts: 9534
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Monster Island

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Spuro »

eabaker wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 11:30 am
JAGzilla wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 7:33 am I just got done with The Mummy. I've been putting it off for a while because I didn't expect to like it much; for whatever reason, ancient Egypt and its mummies and curses have just never held much appeal for me. I did, in fact, like it quite a lot. It moves along at a pretty brisk pace, and is never boring.
Yeah, in a lot of ways it's just Karl Freund showing us how he would have made a tighter, better paced Dracula if he'd been in the director's chair.
I think its similarities to Dracula are why I wasn’t wowed on The Mummy when I first saw it. I watched it as part of a marathon, so I had only just recently seen Dracula, and its similarity became a negative.

I wonder if I’d enjoy it more now.
eabaker wrote: You can't parse duende.
Breakdown wrote: HP Lovecraft's cat should be the ultimate villain of the MonsterVerse.

User avatar
Tyrant_Lizard_King
Sazer
Posts: 12850
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:57 am
Location: The Planet Trade HQ
Contact:

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Tyrant_Lizard_King »

Dracula is officially available on AppleTV in 4K. There seems to be pretty reliable rumors that a 4K boxset of all the original films, sans Creature possibly, will be hitting stores sometime before the end of the year.

https://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-t ... 72321-1600
Last edited by Tyrant_Lizard_King on Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rocker, paleo buff, cryptid enthusiast, Dragonball fanatic, and lover of comic book, video game, manga, & anime babes!
Follow me on Twitter, if you dare! https://twitter.com/TLK_1983
Image

Lesko
GPN Volunteer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:29 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Lesko »

These movies will always be classics! No matter how many times they try to remake them or reboot them or whatever it will never equal the originals.

User avatar
Vakanai
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:27 am

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Vakanai »

Lesko wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:04 pm These movies will always be classics! No matter how many times they try to remake them or reboot them or whatever it will never equal the originals.
Agreed, they'll always be classics. Although I'm still glad that they're trying to remake/reboot them, because sometimes we get pretty good films out of their attempts.
I unapologetically, wholeheartedly, and without a doubt hate Godzilla vs Kong.

User avatar
Chrispy_G
Gotengo Officer
Posts: 1830
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:02 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Chrispy_G »

Sometimes I think that the massive success of films like Titanic and the Lord of the Rings trilogy sort of created a climate of 'big epic blockbusters are at least 2.5 hours' and just feel like, on average, almost every genre film seems to be getting longer.

You look at a lot of these classic Universal horror films, and they are lean, mean and simple. Sure, some people might throw weight behind movies being longer in the name of complexity, depth, scope, more characters, etc etc

But there is nothing wrong with a hyper focused movie that doesn't waste time where it isn't needed. How many times have you seen a movie in recent years where some scenes, sub-plots or characters feel completely useless and unnecessary? As if they are there just to fill time between the great scenes?

I think modern Hollywood could learn a lot from films of the past that had a simplicity, focus, and purity to them. There was nothing about them that was there to waste time. Heck...there is an amazing example in the US version of the original Dracula vs the Spanish version. For all of the various aesthetic improvements the Spanish version tried to implement...it is terribly paced and dragged out compared to the US version.
"I'm saying a prayer, George. A prayer for the whole world."

Lesko
GPN Volunteer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:29 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Lesko »

Vakanai wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:40 pm
Lesko wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:04 pm These movies will always be classics! No matter how many times they try to remake them or reboot them or whatever it will never equal the originals.
Agreed, they'll always be classics. Although I'm still glad that they're trying to remake/reboot them, because sometimes we get pretty good films out of their attempts.
Oh certainly! I didn't want to sound like I was against remakes or reboots or anything like that. While I don't think they will ever come close to the originals it certainly will be interesting to see movies almost one hundred years old done with modern technology. I just hope they are done with care with fans of the original source material.

User avatar
Vakanai
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:27 am

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Vakanai »

Lesko wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:33 pm
Vakanai wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:40 pm
Lesko wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:04 pm These movies will always be classics! No matter how many times they try to remake them or reboot them or whatever it will never equal the originals.
Agreed, they'll always be classics. Although I'm still glad that they're trying to remake/reboot them, because sometimes we get pretty good films out of their attempts.
Oh certainly! I didn't want to sound like I was against remakes or reboots or anything like that. While I don't think they will ever come close to the originals it certainly will be interesting to see movies almost one hundred years old done with modern technology. I just hope they are done with care with fans of the original source material.
Definitely. If it wasn't for remakes and such, we wouldn't have seen the golden age of Hammer Horror, the 90's Mummy movies, Langella's Dracula - and I happened to like the Wolf Man remake a decade ago. But yeah, the originals are classics for a reason and need to be respected. Hopefully with all the new movies coming out they'll show some love to the classics that made it all possible.

Random Universal Monsters opinion - I liked Frankenstein better than Bride of Frankenstein as far as those films go.
I unapologetically, wholeheartedly, and without a doubt hate Godzilla vs Kong.

User avatar
Tyrant_Lizard_King
Sazer
Posts: 12850
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:57 am
Location: The Planet Trade HQ
Contact:

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Tyrant_Lizard_King »

The Universal Classic Monsters 4K Collection. Only includes 4 films, Dracula, The Wolfman, The Invisible Man, and Frankenstein.

https://collider.com/universal-monsters ... -date/amp/
Last edited by Tyrant_Lizard_King on Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rocker, paleo buff, cryptid enthusiast, Dragonball fanatic, and lover of comic book, video game, manga, & anime babes!
Follow me on Twitter, if you dare! https://twitter.com/TLK_1983
Image

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17720
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by UltramanGoji »

Hmm. Pretty weird assortment, not sure why they included Wolf Man and not the Mummy. At least then it would've been chronological. I think I'll just wait out an actual complete box set of the main films and (potentially) an upgrade of the 30 films set.
Last edited by UltramanGoji on Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
SoggyNoodles2016
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 7:37 am
Location: My parents' basement

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by SoggyNoodles2016 »

UltramanGoji wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:42 am Hmm. Pretty weird assortment, not sure why they included Wolf Man and not the Mummy. At least then it would've been chronological. I think I'll just wait out an actual complete box set of the main films and (potentially) an upgrade of the 30 films set.

Wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein are the Big 3 of the Universal Monsters, and I feel like that's the main market ehy have for a boxset. (Invisible Man probably there because the 2020 film)

Agreed here, I'm happy with my Definite Set.
Image

RIP Evan.

edgaguirus
Keizer
Posts: 8563
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by edgaguirus »

The Invisible Man is a great film. Though more sci fi than horror, it still has a memorable character in the unseen and murderous madman. There's a sense of glee in his insanity, which makes his murders and destruction more disturbing. With that distinct voice, Claude reigns in this role.
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

The strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him.

User avatar
Tyrant_Lizard_King
Sazer
Posts: 12850
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:57 am
Location: The Planet Trade HQ
Contact:

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Tyrant_Lizard_King »

Well Wolfman's 80th anniversary is coming up in a few months. I think that's part of their reasoning. Though why skip out on The Mummy I have no clue.
Rocker, paleo buff, cryptid enthusiast, Dragonball fanatic, and lover of comic book, video game, manga, & anime babes!
Follow me on Twitter, if you dare! https://twitter.com/TLK_1983
Image

User avatar
Terasawa
Xilien Halfling
Posts: 5841
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:06 am

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Terasawa »

Three more vintage and rarely-seen Universal horrors (none are monster movies, however) coming in November from Kino Lorber:

Secret of the Blue Room (1933)
Mystery of Edwin Drood (1935)
The Spider Woman Strikes Back (1946)

The (nearly) full list of November Kino releases is here.
寺沢. He/him/his, etc.

User avatar
Spuro
Keizer
Posts: 9534
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Monster Island

Re: Universal Monsters Series (1925-1956) Tribute Thread

Post by Spuro »

Alright, guys? I need help here.

I went to watch the 1925 Phantom of the Opera only to find that the cuts on YouTube all have drastically different runtimes. Went to IMDB for clarification and... things only got more confusing from there...

Image

Someone more knowledgeable about this movie than me, a newcomer: What cut should I pick for a first-time viewing experience?
eabaker wrote: You can't parse duende.
Breakdown wrote: HP Lovecraft's cat should be the ultimate villain of the MonsterVerse.

Post Reply