The Complete Frankenstein 2: Son of Frankenstein and Ghost of Frankenstein Review

Son of Frankenstein (1939)

After 1935's Bride of Frankenstein Universal Studios decided that they wouldn't make anymore monster movies. When a couple of years later they found that their revival screenings of Dracula and Frankenstein were doing really well they decided to resume production of their iconic monster films and begin what is commonly referred to as the "second phase" of Universal Horror. There is no doubt that the majority of the films made in this phase were of a lower quality of those in the first phase. A lot of this had to do with World War 2 which took away some of the talent in front of and behind the camera. The films of this phase would eventually be mostly B films but Son of Frankenstein, which kicked things off, certainly was not.

Son tells the story of the son of Henry Frankenstein returning to his homeland and soon finding that he can't help but delve into his father's past experiments, you can imagine where it all goes from here but there is certainly a lot of fun along the way. Those familiar with the classic Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein will be delighted to see that much of the source of that film comes from this one. Certain references that I did not get before in Young Frankenstein are now clear to me and it only makes that film even better. Son is a pretty good film in its own right and has a great cast. Basil Rathbone is perfect in the role as the son of Doctor Frankenstein and Bela Lugosi does a fine job as the assistant Ygor. It is interesting to not that Ygor did not appear as a character in the first two films. Lugosi was never really able to recapture his Dracula performance but Ygor might be the closest he came to a comeback. Karloff is fantastic in his final turn as the monster but unfortunately is not given as much time on the screen here as he was given in the previous outings. The monster is also less emotive besides one scene involving a mirror. Karloff could tell that soon the monster would be nothing more than a machine in these films and he picked the right time to exit the series. Lionel Atwill plays a police inspector in this film and he gives a great performance. Atwill is one of those character actors who pops up in every B horror and mystery film you can think of. It is notable that he eventually faced-off against Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes as professor Moriarty.

Son benefits from its great actors and fantastic sets. The sets are done in an expressionistic style which reminds one of old silent German cinema. The make up is, as always, exceptional and all the actors work well together. Unfortunately, Son of Frankenstein does not work as well as the previous two efforts. It's plot is alright but it isn't enough to justify the film's 94 minute run time, which is the longest of the three films. the film begins well and then drags a little bit in the middle. The conclusion however is one of the best parts of all three films so far. It is gripping and suspenseful and really allows Karloff to shine on the screen in what was arguably his greatest character. In the end, Son of Frankenstein is a really good Frankenstein film and it should definitely be watched and enjoyed even if it isn't as good as the first two 3.5/5

Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)

I don't have much to say about Ghost of Frankenstein. By the time it was made in 1942 Universal's monster movies were now strictly "B" pictures. The budget is lower and Karloff is no longer playing the Monster. The film shows a definite drop in quality and despite a few decent moments Ghost is an utter failure.

The story involves the "other son" of Frankenstein taking control of the monster and this time he wants to give it a better brain. This idea is a logical one when you think about the mythos the films had created, but it is not enough to hinge a plot on, even if the film is only an hour and seven minutes long. This time the cast is not as good as the previous ones. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the monster in a way that really makes you wish Karloff had continued and maybe gotten the script changed. Chaney just isn't Karloff and he sticks out like a sore thumb. Lionel Atwill gets far too little screen time in his new role as a villain and Ralph Bellamy plays a completely uninteresting romantic lead. In fact, the romantic sub plot of this film doesn't even exist really and yet the two romantic leads are shown escaping in the last shot of the film. The woman at least gets a couple scenes where she is the main one on screen but Bellamy's character is completely undeveloped. They could've at least put together a cheesy love scene to make the end of the film have ANY emotional impact. Even Lugosi seems tired as Ygor and this is only his second appearance.

As it stands there are a couple of interesting scenes involving the monster but they are mostly one's we've seen before. There is an interesting twist at the conclusion which at least keeps the whole thing from being soporific. In the end, on its own, it probably is a fun little "B" picture but when viewed in context it really demonstrates a lowering in quality 2/5

Stay tuned tomorrow for my review of the monster mash-ups Frankenstein Meets the wolf Man and House of Frankenstein!

The Complete Frankenstein 1: Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein Review

It's been far too long since I have written a review for this blog. There are several reasons why I took such a long break, mainly work and school. Now that I am on fall break I'm going to be coming out with reviews at a furious pace. My first series will be a review of every single Universal Studios Frankenstein film (Including the monster mash-ups). This is in honor of Halloween and because I have four days to kill and I can't think of a better way to do it!

Frankenstein (1931)

After the success of Dracula, Universal Studios turned to Mary Shelley's creation for their next horror film. This one would cement the studio's legacy as one of monsters. Frankenstein was originally supposed to be played by Bela Lugosi, who played Dracula, but thankfully for us movie-goers Boris Karloff was given the role. The opening of Frankenstein is interesting because it involves a pre-credits message from Edward Van Sloan warning us that what we are about to see "may even horrify us" from then on the storyof Doctor Frankenstein and his creation keeps us glued to the screen.

Everybody knows what the plot of this film is so there is no need to summarize it. Some have criticized this film for straying from the original book so greatly. I actually believe that by stream-lining the story this version improves upon the book. The main theme is not lost in many drawn out pages of description which dilute its impact as it is in the book. Of course, having a great cast helps and Frankenstein is nearly flawless on this front. Colin Clive makes for an iconic Doctor Frankenstein and his exclamation of "It's alive!" is still memorable. Boris Karloff gives a truly incredible performance as the monster which I would argue is one of the greatest performances in the history of film. The  emotion and feeling he is able to bring to the character gives the monster incredible dimensions. This is aided by one of the most famous make-up jobs of all time.

The direction by James Whale is good, if not as experimental as his next Frankenstein film. The sets are incredible. What's truly surprising about Frankenstein is that for a movie from 1931 (generally considered part of the "talkie" period) it still holds up. It may not be as frightening today as it must have been back then but certain sequences still evoke chills to this day. Even more impressive is how much depth is able to be packed into a 1 hour and 10 minute run time. When today, a Transformers film can be 2 hours and 45 minutes it is refreshing to see a film pack so much story into less then half that time.

If there is one minor flaw with the original Frankenstein it is that there is a male character, Victor, who appears in the beginning of the film and who seems to serve no purpose but to build romantic tension. It is forgivable because he helps to provide some necessary exposition but he is still a very flat character. That flaw not withstanding this is a fantastic film and one of the jewels in Universal's crown. It's Alive and well 5/5!

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

By 1935 Universal had produced several more horror films and was unquestionably the "house of horror". Much in the film industry had changed as well. Movies were evolving to allow for musical soundtracks during a sound film and directors as well as actors were experimenting more with the form. It was the perfect time for director James Whale and stars Colin Clive and Boris Karloff to reunite for another Frankenstein film and, boy did they make the most of  it! Setting the template for how to make a great sequel the Bride of Frankenstein not only stands up to its predecessor, it surpasses it.

The opening of Bride is brilliant. It begins on a stormy night with three of the foremost ambassadors of English literature of the 1800's, Byron, Shelley, and Mary Shelley. Byron and Shelley both tell of how thrilled they were by the first story of Frankenstein and Mary tells them there is more to the story. She then begins to narrate  this new tale of Frankenstein. This opening serves to bring the viewer right back into the action and gives the viewer the feeling of being told a legend by the fireplace on a stormy night.

The film then goes on to show how the monster got a Bride and many other adventures which you will just have to see for yourselves it you haven't before. This film is sheer genius. It continues to delve into the ideas proposed in the original while expanding upon them and developing tis characters. It even does this while also introducing new and truly memorable characters to the mix. If that weren't enough this film has every emotion from the classic scares to self-referential comedy to tragedy to pathos, even more incredibly none of these elements overpowers the others Finally, what's truly staggering is that it does all of this in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Very few films are a perfect example of their genre but Bride of Frankenstein approaches perfection.

A lot of credit for this has to go to three people, Director James Wale, Boris Karloff, and Franz Waxman. Whale uses some truly inventive directorial techniques which help to give the film even more life then its predecessor had. He utilities some incredible special effects to their maximum and the different angles of shots are superb. The lighting and composition of the film is almost a character in and of itself bringing some incredibly inventive sets to life and given that great feeling of gothic horror to other scenes. Boris Karloff gives his best performance here as the monster. He is given the chance to speak in one of the greatest scenes in film history, the scene where the monster meets the blind man. This scene was taken from the original novel and it is executed perfectly here, giving the monster true humanity. Karloff's performance is uncanny and it truly helps one ot understand why he became so sought-after for horror films. Franz Waxman is the composer of the perfect soundtrack to this film. Every cue is interesting and exciting and it really adds to the film.

There is so much more that could be discussed about this film but this review would go on for far too long. The make-up of both the monster and the Bride is iconic and exceptional. Some may watch this film after reading this review and think that I have "over-hyped" it and that is the danger of writing a review where there is almost nothing you can give but praise. Nevertheless, the Bride of Frankenstein is the best monster film Universal Studios ever released and it is one of the best of its genre. It is also a prefect companion to the original making it a truly worthy sequel. I can't recommend this one highly enough 5/5!

Stay Tuned tomorrow for my review of Karloff's last outing as the monster Son of Frankenstein and the last solo outing of the Monster in "the Ghost of Frankenstein"!

Classics Thursday: The Rules of the Game (1939)

When I am about to watch a film which some label as "the greatest film of all time" I always feel a mixture of anticipation and foreboding. My anticipation stems from the fact that I am about to experience a "classic" for the first time. The foreboding stems from my feeling that there is no way the film will meet up to that high expectation. To call something the "greatest of all time" is to make it nearly impossible to approach with the right expectations. I'll never forget the first time I watched Citizen Kane. I was so excited to finally see the "best film ever made". I finished the film with a deflated feeling. Was it good? yes, but it was hard to think of it as the "greatest of all time". I had a feeling last night that The Rules of the Game would end up making me feel the same way. This French film from 1939 has been hailed by critics as a supreme masterpiece. Based on the synopsis, I did not see how this could be possible. The plot centers around a country estate wherein several members of the French aristocracy face many trials and tribulations with regards to that time honored of human emotions: love. It didn't seem like anything new or epic in scope and it didn't seem like the sort of canvas upon which a "masterpiece" could be painted on. Yet, the Rules of the Game defied expectations; it truly is one of the greatest films ever made.

The greatness of this film for me lies not in its biting social commentary of the French upper class on the eve of WWII, but rather in how absorbing this film is. The film brings you into its world so adeptly that after it was over I had to remind myself I had never actually lived in that house or known any of those characters. Today's blockbusters seek to bring people out of there ordinary world all the time. This summer I joined a gang of mutants, fought apes that could talk, and traveled through space with Chris Pratt, but none of these experiences was as engaging as the Rules of the Game. A lot of this has to do with the director, Jean Renoir's, use of the camera. It is a camera so free in its movement. In many scenes the people who the frame focuses on will change multiple times. This sense of fluidity creates a reality, a society, in which all of these people interact. The characters are well developed to be sure, but the film is focused more on their world than any specific character. To my mind there is no real hero in this film. There is no one who the audience is supposed to "root for". This further focuses the viewer on the society as a whole.

The realism is further created by having several scenes in which one can hear characters talking over one another. In some sequences many different actions are carried out at the same time. Many films of this period focused action on only one or two characters in a scene, but here the whole point is that many actions are taking place. Again this creates a world for the viewer rather than a narrative.

It is all so expertly shot that one can forget the marvelous dialogue which is spoken in the film. The script is razor sharp and each of the many characters feels unique. It is at moments funny and deeply tragic. I think that this mix of emotions helps to make the film all the more real for the viewer. At times we want to laugh and at others we are disgusted.

I think that some may read this and then see the film and be disappointed. That is inevitable when one lavishes such praise on a work. I think that seen in context it is difficult not to recognize the Rules of the Game as a great film but seen out of context I could understand, just like with Kane, how it would underwhelm some people. Nevertheless I wholeheartedly recommend giving this film a try and experiencing one of the greatest masterpieces cinema has to offer 5/5!

Classics Thursday: Bananas (1971)

In honor of his new film Magic in the Moonlight coming out July 25th I thought I'd take an opportunity to look back at Woody Allen's early career. This was the time when his films were strictly comedic in tone and low on budget. Bananas was only his third directional effort and as a comedy it works surprisingly well.

Bananas is the absurd story of a New Yorker who tests new products to see if they are safe for commercial use. After a break up with his girlfriend he decides to go to a small South-American country. Through a series of events he eventually becomes the leader of this small country. It is a parody of the American "puppet countries" in South America of the time combined with a sense of anarchy that is only matched by the Marx Brothers.

Allen's wit is in sharp form, especially in the early stages of the film. When the move to South America is made the film becomes even crazier and the whole thing reaches dizzying heights in one of the funniest courtroom scenes in movie history. Allen's earlier films are often "put-down" as immature and while this may be true there is no denying that Bananas is really funny. If you're looking for a good laugh you really can't do any better than this.

The film is a little dated in areas but the sharpness of the humor makes up for it. While not every gag works enough do that the film is enjoyable from start to finish. I was surprised how funny this gem was. If you get a chance to see it you owe to yourself to check out this great early Woody Allen film 4/5

X-Men Days of Future Past (2014) Review

X Men Days of future Past is really a statement by its director, Bryan Singer. A statement that not only can he direct a great comic book movie but that X Men is HIS franchise. Singer began the franchise back in 2000 when comic book movies were not the box office giants they are today. It can be argued that he directed the first "modern" comic book movie. It was a film which utilized the relatively new tool of  CGI to help bring its powerful heroes to light. After that first installment he followed it up with a sequel which many critics believe is even stronger than the original. The franchise was off to a great start and Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, Patrick Stewarts Professor X, and Ian McKellen's Magneto were now instantly recognizable. Unfortunately for us movie-goers the third installment was helmed by another director and it suffered for it. After this, two wolverine movies were made, and then in 2011 the franchise was "rebooted" by Mathew Vaughn with X-Men First Class. First Class gave us the backstories of Charles and Erik before they became enemies. It was set in the sixties and had a great Bond-like vibe. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As you may be able to tell from this complicated history the franchise was really all over the place and the task was given to Bryan Singer to right it all. It is a seemingly impossible task but miraculously he has pulled it off and made my favorite X-Men film to date.

The film opens in the future where Mutant killing Sentinels have wiped out much of civilization. Professor X sends Wolverine back in time to stop these  Machines from ever being used. This plot allows for a bridging of the universe of the first three films and the universe of the "reboot". Of course complications ensue and many great twists occur along the way which you should enjoy for yourselves. One of the best things about this film is just how great the cast is. everyone is back and plays their characters with a virtuosity the blurs the line between actor and character. Stewart IS Professor X and Jackman IS Wolverine just as Fassbender IS the younger Erik and Jennifer Lawrence IS Mystique. The story fleshes out both time periods even if the majority of the film is set in the past. The film is not afraid to have fun either. It was probably tempting to make everything in a film this epic deadly serious but it is a credit to the script and to singer that the film ahs plenty of moments of fun.

Singer shows off in several sequences that remind the audience just how good the early X-Men films were at bringing the comic books from the page to the screen. The action sequences work and they are done with an energy which keeps the film exciting. There enough surprises along the way that the movie never becomes stale. To be a comic book movie made in 2014 and still feel fresh is a great feat.

If there is one nit-pick it would be that the characters who are specific to the future don't get much time to be fleshed out. Some of them are just kinda there. For comic book fans this is probably fine because they are already familiar with the characters but for the average film goer some of the characters seem like extras. I'm not suggesting they should've been fleshed out because that would have weighed down the film but it is something which I noticed. The film packs so much into its run time it's really incredible how well paced it is. The fact that Singer was able to bring together this convoluted franchise is as great a feat as what Whedon did with the avengers. The fact that he made me really excited about future X-Men movies is maybe something he deserves even more praise for 4.5/5!   

Classics Thursday: On the Waterfront (1954)

In continuing with my new series I am reviewing another great film. This one is very well known, so it is not in the "gem" category, but after picking up Criterion's wonderful Blu-Ray this week I couldn't help watching it again and reviewing it.

Very few films have as important a place in film history as On the Waterfront. Many times a film is either historically significant, in that it is inexorably connected to its period due to its subject matter or style, or artistically significant, In that the techniques used to create the film were revolutionary. On the Waterfront is in that rare group of films that are both historically significant and artistically significant. The historical significance stems from its connection to the Hollywood blacklist. This has been written about many times in many places and really has very little bearing on a review of the film so if you are interested in the significance this film has in relation to the blacklist feel free to look it up for yourself. For the purposes of this review I will focus on the many advancements On the Waterfront made in terms of acting and filmmaking technique.

On the Waterfront is the story of Terry Malloy who begins the film as a heavy for the waterfront union. Throughout the course of the film Malloy begins to realize the types of atrocious things the union is doing and finally stands up against them. This is difficult since his older brother is very close to the union boss. The film is about Terry standing up for what's right and coming to realizations about his character. The true power of the film cannot be given in a brief synopses as this film is really about character. The revolutionary acting and directing allow this to be possible.

This film is a master-class in method acting, an acting style which was still quite new at the time. Brando's performance is legendary, and rightfully so. He brings so many layers to Terry that you feel that the character really comes alive. The famous "contender" speech is rightfully famous as well. It is really the dramatic peak of the film, and while repeated over and over it still retains much of its power. The rest of the cast also turn in tremendous performances. Eva Marie Saint in particular seems to work very well with Brando and you can't imagine another actress in that role  Karl Malden plays my favorite priest in film history, Father Barry. Finally Lee J. Cobb brings the right amount of nastiness to the role of the ironically named Johnny Friendly.

Acting is often what draws people to this film but Kazan's direction and innovative location shooting are what help make it a "perfect" film. The idea of making a movie, in widescreen no less, on a grimy waterfront was risky in the 1950's. This level of realism had been explored in Europe, especially Italy (see Bicycle Thieves as an example), but in America it was just not typical. Kazan brings an energy to the film that keeps everything moving. His close ups allow the actors to act and his framing gives every scene the right mood. The score is by Leonard Bernstein and it is quite dramatic but because of Kazan's energy it works very well.

On the Waterfront is a movie everyone should experience at some point. It is both a moral tale and a character study which works on a variety of levels. If you haven't seen it now is the time to check it out and if you have, you already know that it is worth going back to. It is simply one of the classics of cinema 5/5!

Classics Thursday: Charade (1963)

After a short hiatus (due to studying for finals) I am now back writing film reviews. For the summer I am going to institute a new series called "Classics Thursday". Every week on Thursday there will be a new review of a classic film. Some films will probably be ones that many may have seen, but my goal is to find, and review, some gems. Because of this, If you have any suggestions for movies that I should review for this series please comment.

Charade has been called "the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made", by that description alone I knew I had to see this film. Charade was directed by Stanley Donen, who, while not as well known as Hitchcock, is a great director in his own right. Donen is known for his musicals like Funny Face and my all-time favorite, Singin' in the Rain. Charade is the first, and only, pairing of two of the screen's most iconic stars: Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Based on this film it's a shame that these two never did another film. All of this talent behind, and in front , of the camera makes Charade a truly fantastic film in the classical Hollywood vein. It was made in a year when that style was slowly dying out, but it shows no signs of aging in Charade.

Charade begins with a murder, the murder of Audrey Hepburn's characters' husband. This murder leads to a series of twists that really should be experienced uninhibited by spoilers. Suffice it to say, that this film is a jigsaw puzzle in which no one can be trusted. It is a thriller in the vein of North By Northwest with chases, witty dialog, suspense and romance in equal measure. Grant plays the urbane character he does so well and Hepburn is really the center of the film. Both stars light up the screen. Part of the reason for this, is the quality of the dialogue, but another reason is the power of seeing these two icons meet. The supporting cast is filled with great actors playing the roles we always imagine them in. Walter Matthau plays a member of the state department while George Kennedy and James Coburn play assassins. This depth in the cast is reminiscent of the great Hollywood films of old.

Donen directs the film with a style that is very reminiscent of Hitchcock. This is a major compliment. Donen creates sequences that are memorable long after the film is over. The musical score is by Henry Mancini, and that's all you need to know to know that it's good. The film takes great advantage of its locations and seeing it on Blu-Ray was a fun visual experience.

A surprising aspect of Charade is its comedy. It's as if Donen set out to create a perfect combination of the classic screwball comedy of the thirties and the post-war thriller of the forties. For the most part this combination is incredibly successful. The romantic comedy aspects of this film make Charade a little like a happy median between Hitchcock's To Catch a Thief and North By Northwest. This makes for one of the most entertaining experiences a film goer could have, but it is impossible to call Charade perfect. As with anything this tightly plotted, it can seem contrived at times, and some of the comedy could be a little bit out of place. Like Hitchcock however, because the film on a whole is so entertaining I really can't resist giving Charade a 5/5!

Remember if there are any films that you think are "gems" that you would like me to review please comment below!