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
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 »

KManX89 wrote:
tbeasley wrote:
KManX89 wrote: Then again, werewolf movies are, in and of themselves pretty campy. There's only a handful you can say are actually worthwhile. The Howling, An American Werewolf in London and the first (few?) Underworld movie(s); other than that, yeah, it's pretty much a crapshoot.
Dog Soldiers and Gingersnaps are both more worthwhile than the Underworld movies. And no vampires needed.

Arguably Late Phases and Bad Moon aren't half bad either, but YMMV.
eabaker wrote: You can't parse duende.
Breakdown wrote: HP Lovecraft's cat should be the ultimate villain of the MonsterVerse.

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 »

Curse of the Werewolf and Silver Bullet are pretty damned good as well. Heck, even I Was a Teenage Werewolf is a lot more of a legitimately good movie than its reputation suggests.
Last edited by eabaker on Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Gigantis
Sazer
Posts: 10493
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:52 pm
Location: Nebula of the Orion

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

Post by Gigantis »

Kaiju-King42 wrote: Arguably Late Phases and Bad Moon aren't half bad either, but YMMV.
I didn't know you were a TV Troper 42! :D
Image

A guy who randomly stumbled upon this place one day, invested much too much time into it, and now appears to be stuck here for all eternity..and strangely enough, i do not regret it!

User avatar
tbeasley
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2033
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:28 pm

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

Post by tbeasley »

For me, The Wolf Man, The Howling and American Werewolf in London come to mind immediately as the werewolf movies (and designs), but there are plenty of others well-worth checking out - Werewolf of* London (the Universal one), I Was a Teenage Werewolf, Curse of the Werewolf, The Beast Must Die, Wolfen (completing the 1981 werewolf movie trinity), Silver Bullet, The Monster Squad, Wolf, Bad Moon, Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers (the last really good one, for me).
Last edited by tbeasley on Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

tbeasley wrote:For me, The Wolf Man, The Howling and American Werewolf in London come to mind immediately as the werewolf movies (and designs), but there are plenty of others well-worth checking out - Werewolf on London (the Universal one), I Was a Teenage Werewolf, Curse of the Werewolf, The Beast Must Die, Wolfen (completing the 1981 werewolf movie trinity), Silver Bullet, The Monster Squad, Wolf, Bad Moon, Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers (the last really good one, for me).
So glad that somebody else showed some appreciation for The Beast Must Die! I wanted to include it in my post, but was afraid I'd be met by a bunch of hyperbolic hatred for the movie.
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
fred25_ca
Monarch Researcher
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:05 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

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

Post by fred25_ca »

Yeah, it's crazy how rich and great the Werewolf genre is in movies.
I'd say The Wolfman and Curse of the Werewolf are tie. Universal only wins against Hammer in this case because their Wolfman actually came back in a few good sequels (Frankenstein vs The wolfman and Abbott and Costello meets Frankenstein mostly). Oliver Reed really deserved a sequel.
American Werewolf is easily the best modern werewolf movie but my second favorite movie has always been Bad Moon. It's such an underrated little gem. It has the best werewolf design and suit in movie history, a great simple premise and is so rewatchable.
Silver Bullet is also really good but unfortunately the weird bear suit for the werewolf is just so disappointing, especially when you look at the Bernie Wrightson illustration for the book and see how awesome it could have been.
One final shoutout to The Howling 5. I like the first one (but never really loved it, it just doesn't quite work, imo, especially when you put it next to Americain Werewolf) but i've always had a soft spot for the fifth movie. The script is pretty mediocre, the acting fairly bad but it's one of those rare movies where the setting just elevates the movie so much. It's premise is similar to The beast must die (a sort of Agatha Christie movie) but the real catch is it takes place in an isolated old castle in the middle of a snowstorm, not unlike Polanski's The fearless vampire killers. Such a strong setting that provides for a very unsettling atmosphere. Plus, while you don't see him a lot, the design for the werewolf is fantastic!

If I was to rank my favorite Werewolf movies, i'd rank them this way:
1-American werewolf in London
2- Bad Moon
3- Curse of the werewolf
4- The Wolfman
5- Silver Bullet
Last edited by fred25_ca on Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
My newest monster movie, "Home sweet home":
https://vimeo.com/134487385

User avatar
tbeasley
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2033
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:28 pm

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

Post by tbeasley »

By Drew Struzan -
Image

Image

By Mike Mignola -
Image

Added in 28 days 18 hours 33 minutes 46 seconds:
Topps Universal Monsters trading card set from 1994 by Mike Mignola –

Image
Image
Image
Image
Last edited by tbeasley on Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Octopus
G-Grasper
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:06 am
Location: Pacific Ocean

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

Post by The Octopus »

Isn't this Alex Ross painting epic?
Image
Image

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

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

Post by edgaguirus »

Nice art, especially the Gillman one. CFtBL is an amazing movie.
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'm going to bring up a couple of the lesser known movies under the Universal banner: Dracula's Daughter and She-Wolf of London.

They are very interesting films and I'm wondering what people here think of them.
Spoiler:
Dracula's Daughter was the first sequel to the original Dracula film. I didn't even know the film existed until passed the turn of the century when DVD collections were being released and included that film. My first assumption was that it was so bad that Universal kind of hid it away and then tacked it onto the DVD to make it seem like there was more of an epic collection there. To use an example of what I am talking about, I remember finding an Alien and Predator DVD collection at a store, and it included every single Alien and Predator movie with the two AVP films as well. And my first thought was "That's a pretty nifty set...except for the fact that I only like 3 of the movies in the whole collection".

Anyways, Dracula's Daughter is a bit odd as it picks up right where Dracula left off, with Van Helsing being questioned about staking Count Dracula and being arrested for his murder! (Harker and Mina are nowhere to be seen to serve as witnesses in his favor). The time period is a bit off here as the first film seems like it was set in the late 1800s, like the novel, but this movie (the immediate sequel) seems to be set in what was then modern times, with airplanes and telephones being used in the plot.

However, inconsistencies between sequels was more forgivable back then given that this was before home video, online streaming, and even before these movies showed up on television, so audiences couldn't be expected to remember every single detail of a movie they saw 5 years earlier.

Overlooking those problems, I actually found the film to be quite enjoyable and it was a pleasant surprise. Gloria Holden plays the part very well, and as some have pointed out, she actually hated playing the role due to the typecasting it was bound to cause, and some critics have speculated that this real distaste for the role actually enhanced the self loathing that the character is supposed to have. And it was interesting to see a monster in one of these movies that tries to cure herself of being one, a full half decade before The Wolf Man would be released. Also, as a female monster at the center of the film, it helps it to stand out. And interestingly, with her targeting female victims, that brings themes of homo-eroticism, which for the time period, seems rather shocking and unexpected, and it helps the film to stand out.

I think this film gets overlooked because it doesn't have any of the big names in it (Lugosi, Karloff, Cheney, etc.), but Holden carries the film well, and its enjoyable to watch for fans of these movies. It isn't one of the best, but its worth a look.

- As for She-Wolf of London, when I first saw it, I was actually hoping for the same thing in that it would be a neat entry that is often over looked. At first, I was kind of digging it. The original script for the famous Wolf Man was to leave the transformation into a wolf ambiguous, and was supposed to be more of a psychological thriller. I thought that's what this movie was doing, and it actually kind of worked. Was this woman going crazy? Was she imagining things, or was she really turning into a werewolf and attacking people? Unfortunately, the explanation for the events of the film is so unbelievably underwhelming, that it ruined the entire film for me.
White Male Genocide is necessary.

Kill all white men.

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:I'm going to bring up a couple of the lesser known movies under the Universal banner: Dracula's Daughter and She-Wolf of London.
Dracula's Daughter is lesser known? In my experience, it's one of the most-often discussed films in the first cycle of Universal Horror flicks (most often with regards to the sapphic overtones).

A few years back, I did a write-up comparing the un-produced drafts of the story with the finished product *it was the last title I covered in my "Alternate History of Horror" series). Sadly the picutrss are all offline now, but the text is still up:

http://www.theblood-shed.com/an-alterna ... -daughter/
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.

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

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

Post by GojiDog »

eabaker wrote:
GojiDog wrote:I'm going to bring up a couple of the lesser known movies under the Universal banner: Dracula's Daughter and She-Wolf of London.
Dracula's Daughter is lesser known? In my experience, it's one of the most-often discussed films in the first cycle of Universal Horror flicks (most often with regards to the sapphic overtones).

A few years back, I did a write-up comparing the un-produced drafts of the story with the finished product *it was the last title I covered in my "Alternate History of Horror" series). Sadly the picutrss are all offline now, but the text is still up:

http://www.theblood-shed.com/an-alterna ... -daughter/
Its well known to the fans, but general people don't know about it.

Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Bride of Frankenstein, Invisible Man, The Mummy, The Creature...these are all generally well known to most people.

Dracula's Daughter, I feel like only fans and film historians know about it.

PS, that Alternate History write up is really good!
White Male Genocide is necessary.

Kill all white men.

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:
eabaker wrote:
GojiDog wrote:I'm going to bring up a couple of the lesser known movies under the Universal banner: Dracula's Daughter and She-Wolf of London.
Dracula's Daughter is lesser known? In my experience, it's one of the most-often discussed films in the first cycle of Universal Horror flicks (most often with regards to the sapphic overtones).

A few years back, I did a write-up comparing the un-produced drafts of the story with the finished product *it was the last title I covered in my "Alternate History of Horror" series). Sadly the picutrss are all offline now, but the text is still up:

http://www.theblood-shed.com/an-alterna ... -daughter/
Its well known to the fans, but general people don't know about it.

Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, the Bride of Frankenstein, Invisible Man, The Mummy, The Creature...these are all generally well known to most people.

Dracula's Daughter, I feel like only fans and film historians know about it.

PS, that Alternate History write up is really good!
I guess I don't assume that non-fans are really familiar with any of the specific movies, just the general iconography of the characters. And you're certainly spot-on that Countess Zaleska hasn't entered the zeitgeist the way the others you mention have - if anything, the classic image of "female vampire" in pop culture comes from Luna in Mark of the Vampire.

Also, thank you!
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.

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

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

Post by edgaguirus »

She-Wolf of London did have a disappointing ending, but the mystery element kept things interesting. I haven't seen it lately, but I remember the acting being good and the script competent.
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
Leviarex
JXSDF Technician
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:49 pm
Location: Pellucidar
Contact:

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

Post by Leviarex »

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

Last edited by Leviarex on Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Post by GojiDog »

So how do people here feel about the Spanish version of Dracula?

As a kid, I didn't know it existed, and it wasn't until DVD releases started including it that I became aware of its existence.

Some fans and film historians have suggested that it is the superior version, and from a technical stand point, I can see that point of view. Certain shots are handled better, and there is a little bit more pizzazz injected into certain moments like seeing Mina (Eva in the Spanish version) bite Harker, and the vampire brides being more aggressive with Renfield (BTW, I just recently found out the Dracula's vampire brides are the same actresses in both versions). And generally (key word here) the acting is really good. I actually quite liked Pablo Alvarez Rubio's take on Renfield which is still crazed, but different from Dwight Frye's legendary performance. The Spanish version is also longer by about 20 minutes, which makes me think that it wasn't subject to the heavy editing that the Tod Browing's original cut was.

However, the key difference that puts the English version ahead of the Spanish however is Bela Lugosi. He is absolutely legendary in the role and will forever be the measuring stick of all Dracula performances. His delivery is great, and the way he goes from off beat but likable foreigner to blood thirsty brute is fantastic. I could watch him in the cape all day every day. Its his performance that gives the film its magic and staying power, allowing me to overlook most of the films' flaws in the process. Sadly, I could never take Carlos Villar seriously in the role. Every facial expression makes it look like a spoof of Lugosi, which is likely unintended since both productions were simultaneous. He just looks so goofy in the get up.

If I was going to go point by point, there are several instances where the Spanish version is superior. However, at the end of the day, the movie is called Dracula and its Lugosi that keeps me coming back to the English version of the film. That said, it is cool to have the Spanish version so widely available now and I've watched it a few times. Its a neat piece of film history that deserves to stand on its own merits.
Last edited by GojiDog on Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
White Male Genocide is necessary.

Kill all white men.

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 »

GojiDog wrote:So how do people here feel about the Spanish version of Dracula?
As someone who got into the Universal Horror cycle only last year, who has no nostalgic attachments to any of the films (including Dracula), I'm without question in the camp that considers the Spanish version to be the superior film.

I actually didn't really like the English version of Dracula. I've watched... thirty-eight of these movies by now, according to letterboxd, and the English Dracula is still one of my least favorites. I was more forgiving of it when I first started out, assuming that Dracula's cinematic stiffness was a result of the times. 'It was an early sound film,' I reasoned. 'They just didn't know how to film sound films yet.'

After seeing not only the far superior Spanish version, but other movies released close to the same time frame, I can safely assume that those assumptions were incorrect. The Spanish version feels alive. It feels like an actual film rather than a wooden stage show. It's also the more creative of the two, both in its effects and how it uses its shots to tell a story.

And no disrespect to Legosi, but I much prefer Villarias's Dracula. I thought he was far creepier in the role.
eabaker wrote: You can't parse duende.
Breakdown wrote: HP Lovecraft's cat should be the ultimate villain of the MonsterVerse.

User avatar
Angilasman
G-Grasper
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:12 pm

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

Post by Angilasman »

The Spanish Dracula is technically impressive and features scenes that clarify the plot, but in the end I find it inferior.

For one thing: it's not as creepy. The stillness of Browning's original contributes to its stageyness, yes, but also captures creepiness and dread effectively throughout. The second is casting: losing the always great Van Sloan is bad, losing Dwight Frye (the underrated MVP of the movie) is worse, but the most egregious is Carlos Villarías replacing Lugosi. Villarías is terrible, maybe one of the worst performances I've seen in a movie. Even if the movie was even stronger than it is, I think Carlos's performance would still handicap it from greatness. That's how bad it is.

With Dracula coming off more like Count Floyd and Van Helsing's actor reminding me very much of Eugene Levy the Spanish production of Dracula makes me think more of classic Canadian sketch comedy series SCTV then, you know, a horror movie.

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

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

Post by GojiDog »

Angilasman wrote: With Dracula coming off more like Count Floyd
That is such a great description, I can't believe I didn't think of it, lol
White Male Genocide is necessary.

Kill all white men.

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 »

Ultimately, I favor the English-language version, although the Spanish version is much stronger in certain respects.

One thig I think it's important to remember is that these movies, which we mostly watch on televisions these days, were meant to be projected onto the big screen. The "staginess" of Browning's version is a lot less of a problem when it's viewed as intended, with the theater screen feeling more like a proscenium.

There are definitely some place, just the same, where the more dynamic camera choices in the Spanish-language version work to its advantage. I'd call it a draw on that front.

Lugosi is the fundamental big win of the English-language version. Even if Villarias were any good (he's not), Lugosi's performance is iconic. And Edward Van Sloan is equally leagues ahead of Eduardo Arozamena as Van Helsing.

I adore Dwight Frye as Renfield, but I also really appreciate Pablo Alvarez Rubio's more grounded take on the character. Frye is more fun, but Rubio is both more pathetic and more genuinely creepy. Rubio works as well for that version as Frye does for the English-language version, just in very different ways.

I suppose it's impressive that Barry Norton managed to be significantly less interesting than the already milquetoast David Manners as Harker.

The manor win for the Spanish version is Lupita Tovar as Eva (compared to Helen Chandler as Mina). Tovar is a far more engaging presence, and is allowed to give a much more erotic and unnerving performance.
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.

Post Reply