Son Of Frankenstein

Talk about ending on a high note!

Even as a hardcore Universal Monsters fan this movie is a bit too good. I always think of this as the gold standard of the 40s Universal fare but it actually came out in 1939 taking a kinda sorta reboot to the series, with Wolf Frankenstein inheriting his late father's estate in a town that hates and fears him as he quickly discovers the famed monster of his father's creation who's being used as a tool of revenge. Damn near every single aspect of this production is leaps and bounds better than any of the other movies I've reviewed in this series and I don't even know how. The photography alone is so rich and dense, a lot of the German Expressionist style is showcased here, with every set bathed in dark shadows and unique shapes of light with stellar sets that may seem more on the minimalist side but doesn't detract from the production at all. The cast is honestly fantastic with such a well trained classical actor in Basil Rathbone that can take any bit of material and make it so strong with so much sophistication and class. The relationship between Wolf and the inspector Krogh played by Lionel Atwill might just be the most interesting part of the movie with the inspector at first being greeting and pledging service to aid the Frankenstein family yet slowly gets more suspicious and inquisitive as the movie progresses, and they have a wonderful moment of respect that speaks so much and honestly gave me goosebumps. Bela Lugosi as the "dead" fiend Ygor (yes you read it right) to many this is his crowning role even above the Count, and I do have to admit it shows his range of performances between the two but his Dracula is still my favorite, but he's effectively creepy and does indeed steal several scenes! What's funny is Boris Karloff doesn't show up for quite awhile and only is used sparingly yet even then is a worthy final appearance from him in the series as he would be recast and the monster would be played by several actors in the remaining Frankenstein films. What I greatly appreciate is the actors bounce off each other so well and they're always busy, this is not a two characters sit and talk kind of movie, they drink, play darts, roam the room, it's almost blocked like a stage play. In fact this is one of the longest Universal Monster movies pushing close to 2 hours so it never has to rush, and I dare say this would be an amazing stage play. The theatricality is baked thoroughly in every facet of the film and wouldn't seem out of place in the slightest. Like I'm truly astounded just how well crafted this film is made in every aspect, I mean it was a perfect storm of minds and performers that easily outshines the first two installments which are already incredible films and Bride was superior even to Frankenstein, so what a monumental trilogy. Hell the only other series I can say that have done the same is the Planet Of The Apes prequels, and George Romero's Dead trilogy off the top of my head. Biiiiig 4 glowing stars, 9/10 from me, we couldn't have went out on a better note. This, Black Sabbath, and In A Violent Nature were true standouts this season but we had a pretty damn good October all around I really have to say! It's a joy as always to talk horror and give out recommendations, and while it surely breaks my heart that another Halloween season is on the precipice of ending...we still have one more day don't we? I send out all my festive love and best wishes to the monsters, ghouls, trick & treaters as well as pumpkin eaters, and I hope to see you all very very soon on the other side.

The Invisible Man Returns

I actually could have sworn I reviewed this so many years back.

Nine years after Jack Griffin went insane through experiments on the visible spectrum, we follow a man named Geoffrey framed for murder who with the help of Jack's brother becomes invisible to achieve justice or revenge as the doctor desperately seeks a cure before the madness sets in, in this 1940 minor classic. This is a very well done sequel with enough links to the original but ultimately being it's own thing, you don't even have to watch the first film to follow it and enjoy it. Vincent Price before he became synonymous with the horror genre is our unseen lead and at first you might not be able to tell it's him since he went for a more american-lite accent and yet very much like Claude Rains can get so much emotion and fringing insanity through just his voice alone with not an awful lot of physical acting involved, though I will say his striking height helped accentuate his presence. The film's effects are much more complex and sophisticated in the seven year gap between productions to the point where I really was rather impressed and wondering how they achieved certain tricks, they no doubt used the same black velvet technique but the wire work is insane here and some shots go on for quite some time, no editing shortcomings to be had, so it's a strong improvement on a film that already had some groundbreaking effects. I like the relationship betwen Geoffrey and his love interest Helen, she's a real ride or die even when the mania starts to seep in she's stalwart in helping her man and even I couldn't believe the happy ending to this movie so hell yeah Nan. Usually the title monster bites the dust seconds before a The End in these Universal horror pictures so I'm a happy camper. You would think considering we see Jack Griffin's brother named Frank in this he would be the invisible man and would have a much bigger focus, but he's a solid supporting character racing against the clock to cure Geoffrey, and once again a real one willing to help in any way and you can tell he's rather conflicted with the idea of potentially having to kill his friend before he kills others, it's a solid performance. Of course it wouldn't be a 40s Universal Monster movie without Sir Cedric Hardwicke in there somewhere who despite being top billed isn't in it a great deal and I kinda wish he was considering his importance to the plot later. The visuals are decent, obviously they were workshopping more on the effects side but the sets, the woods, the costuming all still look on par with any other movies in this series but I would have loved to see more spooky atmosphere. In many ways I like it better than The Invisible Man and yet in the same vein as Star Trek it won't surpass the original's popularity and iconic presentation. It's a very good movie but undoubtedly a B-tier addition to the hallowed halls of classic movie monsters, so I give it 3 stars, 7.5/10, and I hope I saved the best for last as we conclude the whole Halloween season with the finale to the Frankenstein trilogy tomorrow.

She-Wolf Of London

Did a movie from 1946 just make my jaw drop six times?

I'm kinda speechless here folks! Nearing the end of Universal's second horror cycle She-Wolf Of London though having no relation to Werewolf Of London in my humble opinion thoroughly surpasses it and I still enjoyed that movie! It's one of very very few movies I've seen where we have essentially an all female leads cast, with June Lockhart playing a young bride to be named Phyllis who seems utterly convinced of a family curse of lycanthropy is hanging over her as murders are discovered in a park near her estate. June plays it so convincingly, seeing this distraught woman go through the wringer mentally easily grabs you and you want to see the best for her. Sara Haden as the authoritative aunt Martha is such an interesting character and despite the film's whopping 1 hour runtime is able to fill out the role amazingly. Then we have Jan Wiley as Martha's daughter Carol who seems the most carefree of the household with her own little romance budding mostly off screen but comes into play in such a shocking way that it honestly left me dumbfounded and floundering for answers, big time love for Jan here. Lastly we have Don Porter as Phyllis' fiancee Barry who I really gotta admit for a 1940s film is one of the most considerate, dare I even say sensitive male characters I have ever seen really saying all the right things with no ulterior motives who simply wants his bride to be safe and loved. That's some progressive as shit casting and character writing for the time! And boy howdy did this film utterly throw me for a loop de loop, throwing out three curveballs that literally left my jaw on the floor each time! I wasn't dreaming of such twists and turns and you think with me seeing as many movies as I have it would be fairly easy to pluck them out but NOPE! I hear even the most hardcore Universal Monsters fans fall silent on this movie and I'm simultaneously thankful and kinda upset about it, because I walked in as blind as possible and found a surprisingly good movie but I wish more recognition could be given to it. Even for a lower budget Universal film the production values are high with great sets, period costuming, enough fog filled woods to satisfy the atmospheric lover within me, with effective writing and a very very good cast that got me invested, intrigued, and truly gobsmacked multiple times! Last damn movie that really swept me away like this in this series was Dracula's Daughter and that is a movie begging to be lauded with as much praise as the most famous monsters of filmland. So I really kicked off this final week with a banger, strong recommendation for a hidden classic, I give it 3 stars and I'll go 8/10 just for how shocking the series of events unfolded. Tomorrow we dig into a legacy continuation with a legend of the entire genre.

Wolf Man

Okay, decent start to the year!

Now am I just a little tiny bit of a Universal Monsters fan? Well I'm the only critic who actually liked Sofia Boutella's The Mummy so you could say mayyyyybe, but fanboy or not this was an interesting movie. I'm sure people will do what they do best on the internet, bitching and moaning, about how fundamentally different this iteration is but I got news for you nightshade if you want a classic werewolf movie I recommend gazing at the last 90 years of cinema! It's 2025 mothertruckers they gotta do something original, and original is what we got! Set in a remote area of Oregon a father, mother, and daughter traverse to a very isolated farm to gather and sort the effects of a dead relative, but on the way get thrashed by a rabid animal that stands on two legs and pretty soon poppa ain't looking so good. Now the crux of this movie believe it or not is a drama with horror elements, and if you can stretch your disbelief more it...actually kinda works. We spend enough time with this family unit to get to know them, their dynamic, and and their feelings before we even get to the mist filled forests of Oregon and the slow transformation of our main character takes the tragic lens of werewolves to a whole other level and area. And some would argue it takes away all the mysticism of werewolves, equating it more to a disease akin to zombies but I don't hold any grievances with that! There's no shot of the full moon, there's no full on transformation sequence, there is barely a body count, and yet! Despite it all is an enjoyable film. Now I had a smidge of faith due to the director Leigh Whannell who also helmed The Invisible Man which I loved to the moon and back, and that fluid tilting camera style mixed with some pretty slick cinematography especially when we get more or less "wolf vision" carries over. It's a very good looking yet seemingly low budget film, hell the vast majority of the movie takes place between three locations that are throwing distance from each other and a very minimal cast, so I feel it could potentially make some profit. Christopher Abbott and the relationship with the daughter played by Matilda Firth singlehandedly made me want to see everyone make it out, and God bless him for going through the painstaking process of prosthetics! Julia Gardner also nails the emotional state from grief stricken to survive no matter what, and you could make an argumemt the movie is more about her than Chris but I'll leave that for you to decide. The actors didn't slack, they commit and wanted to give some dimension to a monster movie and coupled with the script and direction, I feel they succeeded! It's a modern reimagining that doesn't look down on the original or try to surpass it, but take it down a different avenue with a unique story. I respect that, I can recommend it too. 3 stars, 7/10, thumbs up from me!

The Wolfman

We're really keeping it in the family this week.

I've been aware of this version for some time perhaps even since it's release back in 2010, and by all accounts it seems a miracle I was able to watch it at all. It's very worthy to note this was a tumultous project to even get off the ground beginning in 2006, filming completed in 2008, but the film didn't get released until two years later with a constant search for a director and yet through it all come hell or high water Benicio Del Toro was going to be in this movie. That's some commendable ass behavior that seems rarer than a blue moon these days, he even had a producing credit, with great affinity for the 1941 original so a passion project this absolutely was for him. Taking place in 1891 England actor Lawrence Talbot returns to his home in light of his brother being murdered, and upon investigation is marked by the very creature that eviscerated his relative, leading a great many to hunt him down. This is undoubtedly a movie on it's own, yes it has sprinklings of references to The Wolf Man but ultimately does it's own original story throughout which is commendable. Being a period piece it's staggeringly accurate to the time and every penny can be seen on screen, with multiple effectively atmospheric shots in the forest that look beautiful at times, almost creating a canvas of gothic horror in a landscape where such a thing was as antiquated as the time period itself. The acting is decent, they are commited to the roles and while nothing big or bombastic is presented I appreciate the efforts all the same. Benicio is a solid leading man and big time props for him going through the special effects makeup which reportedly took 4 hours to complete, which also means brownie points for not going full CG all the time and only is used when necessary. This is one of Anthony Hopkins' more subdued performances yet even then it's easy to get involved with his character. I do believe this is the earliest film I've seen of Emily Blunt probably before she became famous and indeed it took me a hot second to recognize that was her, and she probably has the most pathos of all the characters. Again took me a brief second to recognize Hugo Weaving as an inspector who already has Lawrence pinned for the murders, and while he isn't in the movie much he does solid work and is a good opponent for Benicio to play against. I will say straight up hands down, easily the most gory and bloody werewolf movie I've ever seen and that's to be expected with special effects master Rick Baker on the production, and coincidence if ever there friggin' was one Rick won an Academy Award for best makeup for two damn werewolf movies, this one and An American Werewolf In London. Do not ask me how that works, the universe is a funny thing. Yet with all the positives present there's always gotta be one negative that keeps rearing it's ugly head, and I fully blame this on when the movie was made. God...damn it this movie is packed to the ever loving gills with jumpscares, predictable as shit, and drags the rating down because of it! I hate it with a passion. And from what I've seen the reception couldn't be more down on the movie, and while I'll say it's just okay maybe others can get more out of it than me. Clearly there are positives to be seen, but the scare factor is tired and the story and script probably needed just a tiny bit more polish to be really good if not great, but I can still say I'm happy I saw it. 2 stars, 6.5/10, let's hope for better tomorrow!

Werewolf Of London

Welcome to the world's first werewolf movie.

Not a bad way to kick off the new year at all! Released in 1935 during Universal's first horror cycle Werewolf Of London centers on a botanist professor who uncovers an extremely rare plant in Tibet before being attacked by someone or more something, and upon returning to London he soon finds he has a strange reaction to moonlight. Now obviously the legend of lycanthropy has been around for some time before this movie and indeed it is a more humble telling than the infinitely more popular Wolf Man film from 1941, but it's still pretty good. Henry Hull as Wilfred has a smidge of the tragic curse that later would be given a much wider breadth with Lon Chaney Jr., but the performance is almost more akin to a Jekyll and Hyde situation where he's a very high class well dressed and spoken man, but when the wolf form takes shape and actually looks pretty awesome I'll say he wears more simple shabby clothes wandering the dark streets of London with a desire to kill yet still walks and acts like a human. It's interesting to see how it began before the trope evolved. Another excellent example of the movie is Warner Oland probably best known to film buffs as Charlie Chan in the early 1930s who plays almost a Van Helsing type character who is familiar with the legend of werewolves and seeks to help the afflicted professor rather than destroy him, he has such a great presence and I find it a crying shame he passed away in 1938 because from what I saw he was a very good actor. Valerie Hobson was a pleasant familiar face to see as Wilfred's wife Lisa, and I gotta say for a 1930s movie she is not at all a damsel or weak willed woman she says what she wants, does what she wants, and is taking no nonsense from man or woman which was great! The look of the film is simple but effective, there's no sprawling sets but each is distinctive and fits that grimy seedy London atmosphere which contradicts nicely with the more swanky socialite gathering homes of the high and mighty. Though mind you it does not take a positive light to any single one of the sharp dressed rich, really painting them as vacuous and idiotic for some light humor. In fact the only real criticism I can give the movie is we spend just a little too long focusing on these ancillary characters instead of say Wilfred or Lisa, the film has brief tangents so I think they were still ironing out their scripts. I mean hell at this point the vast majority of Universal Monster movies were based on literary previously established works that they didn't need to tinker with much, so it's a small complaint. Definitely a minor classic in this catalogue but for lovers of monster movies it's another fine addition to the collection. I give it 2.5 stars, 7/10, and we're jumping 75 years in the future tomorrow so stay tuned.

The Mummy's Curse

Happy Halloween ghouls and ghoulettes!

More of a whimper than a bang for the end. Universal was running out of steam for horror films by the mid 40s and nothing really says it louder than the fact both Ghost and Curse came out in 1944 putting an end to The Mummy until Hammer studios got their hands on it. A titanic shift has occured here in both time and space, so apparently 25 years have passed since Ghost which if my math is mathing puts this in the late 1960s but the bigger kicker is the setting has shifted from Massachusets to friggin' Louisiana! That's kind of a wide berth to put it lightly, we got french speaking residents, multiple mentions of swamps and bayous, it's Louisiana. Admittedly the Universal Monster movies like a lot of series back then outside of film serials didn't hold continuity in a great light but even I was surprised how much was in sync picture to picture so this blindisded me a notch. But hey a change is welcome to not get stale, though it's very much business as usual. Priests of Arcam are searching for Kharis in the swamp to take him back to Egypt, the reincarnated princess is being stalked by Kharis, and the whole movie gets wrapped up in the last 5 minutes in true Universal fashion. Is it bad? No I wouldn't go that far, but I do feel if it truly ended with Ghost we would have a pretty damn good trilogy here. There really isn't much in terms of protagonist here, there's a bevy of characters who don't have much part to play so we just focus on the princess Ananka which sounds great! At long last we finally get to meet this girl who's been the goal since 1940 but since she's reincarnated she just takes the shape of a amnesiac with only hints of her past, which is a shame. Even Kharis doesn't have much to do if anything becoming the mindless killing machine we were warned about from the start, strangling any soul who's at the wrong place and the wrong time. Even the ending is pretty lackluster but it has brief memorable moments and flashes of something good that keeps it from being an utter slog and far from unwatchable. It's the weakest of the bunch but that is the curse of sequels. If I had to do a ranking I'd go:

4. The Mummy's Curse

3. The Mummy's Ghost

2. The Mummy's Hand

1. The Mummy's Tomb

 

2.5 stars for this one, 6.5/10. And it appears the eleventh hour is over now and the clock is striking twelve. This was a grand October here and elsewhere, and I hope it was for you too. Wherever you may be and whatever you do this most wonderous of days, you'll always have a little corner for Halloween right here.

The Mummy's Ghost

This may have the best ending to any of the Universal Monster movies.

Not a huge leap in quality this time from Tomb to Ghost, but a decent enough entry. Well not much time has passed since the last movie with the Mummy still in Mapleton and a new priest is introduced yet again but this time with a much different agenda, pretty much grab Ananka and get the hell out of Dodge. Yet again a 60 minute runtime to wrap up the plot, with less of a body count and less interesting protagonists in the form of 30 year old looking college students Tom and Amina who got a bit of a romance going, God bless them the writers try to give character where they can but the runtime is the real killer here and not much changes in the next movie I can tell you that. Will however say Ramsay Ames is a stunningly gorgeous woman, easily the best looking lady woman of the series especially when she gets those white streaks in her hair. And congrats to all the women out there who have that too, you're stunners! But anyway, John Carradine is our new priest and I feel that's an actor who never got his flowers despite every movie I've seen him in he does damn good work, the eyework alone in this movie is intense enough to applaud. Of course Lon returns and though he doesn't get much fanfare in his first scene has some standout moments including the above mentioned ending. Do I spoil it? It is a movie that just turned 80 years old but it's not a very well known movie either, and I think it's so good that I dare not ruin it. All I can say is that was ballsy as hell and I love it to death. It makes the whole movie worthwhile and saves it from being mediocre. It doesn't have the atmosphere and direction as the last but has it's shining moments in other areas. So I'll give it 3 stars, 7/10, you really can't lose much over an hour long movie and who the hell wants to watch stuff like Heaven's Gate or Cleopatra or Gone With The Wind when you can watch all the Kharis Mummy movies instead?

The Mummy's Tomb

Now this is more traditional fare.

Made 2 years after The Mummy's Hand we jump three decades in plot time with a new priest and Kharis venturing to Massachusets to destroy the bloodline of Steve Banning from the first movie because revenge and curses just go hand in hand, as the town of Mapleton has to contend with a murderous mummy. What surprised me twofold from the movie's start is the time period and the return of Dick Foran and Wallace Ford from the first movie, I figured Hand was pretty much the 1940s but on further investigation could have been anywhere from the start of the 1900s to 1940 cause it sure as hell doesn't look like 1970 in this movie but very much is centered in the 40s, and for a Universal monster movie to have this level of continuity of both plot and characters between films is like Marvel levels today! I think I can easily say this is my favorite of the bunch so far dropping the action comedy shtick and giving us atmosphere and horror while still basically treading the same plot as before with some appreciated variation. The cemetery, the woods, the amount of shadow play on sets, the reused music from The Wolf Man, this makes a superior sequel that pushes my buttons in all the right ways. True our leads aren't as interesting as Steve and Babe, this time being Steve's son John and his fianceè Isobel but with a runtime of one singular hour there isn't a lot of room for character depth but they act it just fine and dandy. Turhan Bey though not as slimy as George Zucco in Hand, has a real good presence and is the standout performance for me. Lon Chaney Jr. who was pretty much the main movie monster star of the decade is on the same level as Tom Tyler neither better or worse, I feel is carried aloft higher through the direction and atmosphere giving Kharis a lot more scare factor and upping the body count gives it a proto-slasher vibe. I do kinda wish the Mummy movies of this decade were longer to give more breathing room and thusly better quality, but who ever said having a fun sized length monster movie was a bad thing? I give it 3.5 stars, 7.5/10!

The Mummy's Hand

It wouldn't be October without the Universal Monsters.

Made in the second run of Universal horror spanning the 1940s, The Mummy's Hand does not follow the Imhotep mummy from 1932 but probably the more iconic Kharis mummy. Set in presumably the 40s we follow archaeologist Steve and his friend Babe who are down on their luck in Egypt but come across an artifact leading to the tomb of the Princess Ananka, however the tomb is protected by priests who use Kharis as their weapon. It's very different in tone to the 1932 Mummy with more an emphasis on action and comedy than horror and romance, yet it doesn't lose it's footing and still delivers the goods. Most people when thinking of a mummy probably envision a decrepit bandaged mummy, with dragging feet who strangles people and it all started here. The story practically blazes through with a whopping runtime of 67 minutes, and it's an entertaining enough plot for me anyway. I like our leads with Steve being more the straight man while Babe is the jokester, I've heard some call it a poor imitation of Abbott & Costello but I don't feel that was the intention and the movie did get some strong laughs out of me from time to time. I almost feel it's a rotten shame fellas with the name Babe have gone out of style, I personally would love a guy friend named Babe! I also like Marta who really is the no nonsense member of the party to keep these guys in line and while not a deep substantial romantic player works that side well enough. Tom Tyler is Kharis for this picture alone before strangling duties were given to Lon Chaney Jr., and while it does take a little while to unearth him there's some creepy shots and memorable moments. The production side of things is good solid fare from Universal at this point with nice sets and costumes, and the music score is nice too. It's not an immortal classic like the golden age horror of the 30s but for us Mummy fans it satisfies and is still a good movie on it's own merits. I give it 3 stars, 7.5/10, and we got three more to go before the end of it all.

Dracula [Espãnol]

It feels like home again.

Wow, wow, wow let me tell you! I have heard about this for some time but seeing it for the first time I feel like a fool for not seeing it sooner. Now you may be wondering exactly what it is I'm reviewing here, well in short Universal Studios shot two versions of the 1931 classic Dracula, one for english and one for spanish speaking audiences. They used the same basic script but made changes here and there, the same sets, the same costumes, and the spanish crew shot during the night while the Lugosi version shot during the day. It is such a fascinating experience to watch this, because I've seen the Bela Lugosi version countless times since I was about 8 years old, I know that movie super well, so to see something oh so similar and yet very different the only way I can explain it is like if they remade the movie, not shot for shot, but did an even better job than the original! It was almost a game to see what elements they kept and what they changed. Yeah I am firmly in the crowd of the spanish version being superior to the vastly more famous version, but it might be hard for me to articulate why. The one big element that blindsided me was the fact that this movie pushes an hour and forty-five minutes for the runtime while the Lugosi version is an hour and fifteen minutes long, so you get a movie that takes it's time and has more room for slower moments, character moments, and flat out stuff that was not in the english version. In fact I was profoundly impressed with how much material from the book was presented, it makes the Lugosi version look so truncated and abridged in comparison. The movie is a bit more hardcore too, you barely see a damn thing in the english version and while that has it's own scary effect, you see the bite marks, you hear not one but two stakings, and not to sound piggish or anything but Lupita Tovar's dress is significantly more revealing than Helen Chandler's. I know Americans are kinda prudish and certainly during that time especially, but the spanish audience does not screw about and God bless them for it. I greatly loved the performances given here as well, Carlos Villarías is a very very good Dracula obviously making the role his own, but the way he carries himself and the facial acting gives a different edge to this Dracula, with Lugosi it's a creepy smile and careful lighting around the eyes but with Villarías he looks like he's about to tear people limb from limb and feast. Eduardo Arozamena as Professor Van Helsing I saw a good bit of Edward Van Sloan in, and he had a great presence with a strong worldy knowledge for our vampire hunter so a lot of love there. Lupita Tovar I actually got to see before the film, they had this short little interview probably shot in the 90s as she discussed her time making the picture and you could tell she had a lot of love and appreciation for the role, and she does damn good, truly stunning too I mean holy cow, the Count has very fine taste in ladies for sure. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield, good God I didn't think you could outcrazy Dwight Frye but the man is unhinged in this movie and I love every second of it, nothing but a glowing review of his talents from me. Even Barry Norton as Juan I felt was way better than David Manners' John, never to put down David's performance but he was just a teeny bit of a little bitch in Tod Browning's film but here he seems much more the unshakable heroic leading man. Again it's not the easiest thing to expound upon my points but if you have a back to back comparison viewing the results are as clear as daylight, hell if you watched this and Dracula's Daughter as a sort of introduction to golden age vampire films you'd have a grand time. I know I would! It is fully worth your time seeing if you're any fan of the Universal Monsters, Dracula, or horror films in general. I'm just so happy to be back if even for just a moment in time writing reviews again like I used to, but even more so now that I've seen this slice of cinema. Big time 4 stars, 8.5/10! And our business with Count Dracula is far from over and I will see you next time with a Christopher Lee Dracula film we haven't touched on yet.

Renfield

Surprise! It's the little things in life that help accentuate a good experience.

I've been partaking in some vampire media of late, re-watching Tod Browning's Dracula and Cinemassacre's Dracula showdown, and I've been hopelessly addicted to Castlevania Symphony Of The Night for a solid week. It's awesome, and so was this movie! I only had two wants stepping in, let me see the 1930s Universal logo and let me hear Swan Lake, I did not get either but I am so not even mad! I'm counting this along with 2020's The Invisible Man as the future of the Universal Monsters, taking classic iconic monsters and doing something new and unique with them. It's kind of a pseudo sequel to 1931's Dracula, which works surprisingly well considering the monster movies of the 40s had their continuity fast and loose so it doesn't have to match up exactly. We of course follow Renfield, familiar to the world known Count who is hoping for a change in his life. He starts gradually building a life of his own in New Orleans and spending less time with Dracula, leading him to cross paths with a police officer named Rebecca on the blood trail investigation as they each have their own goals to accomplish. The first thing I gotta tell you is, Nicholas Hoult is fucking great in this role! I know people could complain about, well he's nothing like Dwight Frye but 1.) That's dismissing character innovation, and 2.) You just couldn't replicate that. Even Peter MacNicol in Dracula Dead And Loving It, even he couldn't do Dwight Frye but he came damn close! Nicholas has the right chops for this, perfectly casted in my opinion, he can do the comedy well, when it's time for the big guns he can act so well in scenes requiring drama and emotion, and is just a great lead to follow! Now what do I think of Nicolas Cage as Dracula? Well again I appreciate immensely that they don't just do Bela Lugosi or even Max Shreck, he makes it his Dracula. Now he doesn't go all out, you're not getting Vampire's Kiss part 2 here, he's there to be an intimidating and mostly serious villain for Renfield to overcome and it works very very well. And I have to admit I never equated the vampire/familiar relationship to well...an actual toxic relationship, it's pretty unique how they handle it and it really ain't far from the mark. Awkwafina as Rebecca is absolutely the comic relief but they dial her down as the film progresses, and I feel her story is a solid one trying to avenge her father Morris Quincy (Ha!) and I'll freely admit her and Renfield share some super cute moments. Insert still a better love story than Tw-back to the review. I wasn't fully feeling the kinda unrelated mob family element, I know it's part of Rebecca's story and progression but I also simultaneously felt it wasn't terribly needed as much as it was in the film. But the story and the characters are still great, and yes it gets some hardcore brownie points for incorporating seamless footage at times of the original film with Nic and Nicholas digitally added in, and of course I quoted it because I'm me. The technical aspects are pretty grand too, if you're a bloodhound this movie is up your alley, I mean they take Evil Dead levels of blood and elevate that higher somehow, with a great deal of practical effects, makeup and prosthetics, and solid direction that really put a smile on my face. The comedy works quite well I found, and it's not a joke a minute and if I'm being really honest I don't consider it a full on comedy. Now I know I'm biased, I love the Universal Monsters, I still mourn the Dark Universe, so this won't be an objective rating. But when I stack it all up, those pros really overwhelm those odds. And given the fact this movie made me settle on not just finally sitting down and reading the Bram Stoker novel to appreciate all the adaptations more but also actually wanting to watch and review the spanish version of Dracula, and I swear to you now that will happen this October (So let it be written, so let it be done.), so clearly this worked for me. And the audience I watched it with, even though not many of them probably knew the Lugosi movie, seemed to really enjoy it too. So hey, it might work for both fans and newcomers. I give it a full 4 gold stars, and a 9/10! So check it out, and all you hardcore blood drooling beast of the night fans go point out all the nifty nods and easter eggs. Have a bit of fun and drink up.

Dracula's Daughter

What a film!

I will severely go on record here and say Dracula's Daughter is an excellent film, beyond worthy to be part of the classic Universal Monsters lineup, and I absolutely loved it. For a movie that is again just a bit over an hour long, the pacing couldn't be better as we pick up right after Dracula as the plot involves Professor Van Helsing having to deal with the aftermath of killing Dracula as he is charged with murder, and the drama of Countess Marya Zaleska seeking to be rid of the vampire's curse. Where do I start praising this film? Gloria Holden is amazing, absolutely wonderful in the main role, she has such a needless to say gorgeous physique and her acting shines throughout. Even though her first appearance isn't as classic and memorable as Bela she still pulls off this powerful, creepy, striking visage and I absolutely adore her. In fact all of the cast is on incredible form here, Edward Van Sloane returns and it's just great to see him add on to an already memorable performance, Otto Krueger plays a great leading man and for someone who was 50 years old at the time of filming he doesn't look it and has such an interesting realtionship with the Countess, Marguerite Churchill is amazing and has such a fantastic bickering married couple type relationship with Otto and was genuinely one of the only romances in a horror film that I fully wanted to blossom, and I just have to say Irving Pitchel is perfect, there's just no other way to say it, he's perfect as the Countess' servant Sandor like oh my God this man is a treasure. There are comedic moments in it throughout but never does it detract from the film, it made me laugh and broadly smile quite a bit and increased my enjoyment of the film. The sets are spectacular, from London streets, to foggy forests, to a phenomenal return to Castle Dracula, in fact everything in the production is great. The lighting works wonders and adds to the creepy factor, the camera work is very nice, the music is a lot more present than most Universal horror films. It just really shows what a 5 year leap in cinema can do, cause this ended the first classic Universal Monsters phase before it kickstarted again with Son Of Frankenstein, and the level of filmmaking has only improved since 1931. It is a crime in my eyes this movie is not talked about enough or appreciated enough in the horror community. It is just as great as Dracula, The Mummy, The Wolf Man, Bride Of Frankenstein, all of them. Like, this film without a shadow of a doubt reminded me why I love these movies so dearly, why I regard the classic monsters as highly as I do, hell I think you could introduce someone to these movies with a double bill of Dracula and Dracula's Daughter and get them interested. I really think it's that good. It's nothing but 4 stars, 9/10, this put me in such a great mood and grounded me that much deeper into the most wonderful time of the year.

In Retrospect: The Invisible Man

Does it hold up on a second viewing?

Well with most mystery movies and horror movies, your first initial emotional experience will be different from the second and so on number of viewings, thus leading to more critical analysis of the movie. But I still say I love The Invisible Man, even if the scares don't get me it still holds my attention, and regarding the fact the villain cannot be seen it still makes your eyes dart around wondering where he is. Elisabeth Moss is acting her heart out, her character really going through hell and back again before she gets out of it and she potrays it so well. I heard people's voices of confusion regarding the identity of the Invisible Man, but I personally saw it as a duo act to keep up the illusion of Adrian's death. Even if the story doesn't do it for you, the way the movie is shot is excellent, the slow pans are a fascinating but highly effective decision on the director's part. I still gush over the ending, it really was everything I wanted it to be and while this is no doubt a self contained movie, to see Elisabeth Moss back would be a real treat. Apparently they got Ryan Gosling cast as The Wolfman, an interesting choice but one I can see working, Larry Talbot is a very nice, more laid back, everyday kinda dude which is what I get from Ryan outside of his acting roles. I find these movies to be very important to get younger people, at the very least aware and at the very best interested, in the classic Universal Monsters. It's a niche yes, but an important cornerstone of horror movies to this very day and still a pop culture giant. It really is the perfect movies to introduce kids into this genre, because while younger generations see Freddy, Jason, and Michael Myers as classic horror icons they can't really watch them due to the blood and nudity, and the classic monsters could very much be enough to spook them without traumatizing them. That's how I watched them, back when I was 8 years old and obviously it worked considering my stance on horror has done a total 180° since I was that young. And really the fact that people still want to tell these stories with these characters dare I even say icons, to this day is the true victory. I still very much like The Mummy but I can see where Universal stumbled and am so happy they haven't given up on it. But The Invisible Man is still a fine movie, beautifully shot, very well acted, still holds some suspense and more importantly your attention even on multiple watches. Thumbs up from me without a doubt!

Birds Of Prey next, very much enjoyed it while still accepting it's faults, will it continue to do so? Probably yeah, I'm an easily amused and fun loving individual.

Phantom Of The Opera (1943)

Now for the first Phantom movie in color.

This adaptation takes a few liberties with the source material, but I attribute it to the time when the movie was made, World War 2 was raging so classic monsters weren't exactly scary anymore leading the filmmakers to focus more on a colorful spectacle to entertain audiences. Compared to the Chaney version, this film doesn't have much horror in it but it's still a fine film and even won an Academy Award for Best Cinematography which is evident from the very first shot, it really gives a grand scale and shows off the still lavish original set from the 1925 film. The story concers a poor violinist Claudin, who has spent years helping a young singer Christine to finally be a great singer before his face is scarred by acid and he takes to haunting the Paris Opera House. Somewhat similar to the original novel, but as I said takes some liberties. Hell in the original script Claudin was supposed to be Christine's father, but they cut it because of the romance subplot which was a wise decision to say the least, but it's like they never refilmed previous scenes so Claudin acts very paternal around Christine but for seemingly unknown reasons. And on top of that we get two Raoul's in this version leading to quite a few attempts at comedy that fail miserably, so I can honestly live without that. But beyond that small problem the cast is quite good, Claude Raines is a fine Phantom and for a man of small frame his voice is what gives him power (Just like in the book!), and Susanna Foster is ridiculously pretty and an excellent singer. Speaking of which, there's at least 3 or 4 musical numbers though only one is actually worth a damn in my opinion, Lullaby Of The Bells which is beyond beautiful. So if musicals aren't your taste, I don't blame you if you fast forward through them. But beyond that, it's a good film and should be seen at least once. I have to say Claude Raines Phantom look is quite possibly my favorite of them all, not so much in disfigurement but costume, it looks so cool. You know what's odd? Waaaay back in either my first or second year of reviews, probably my first I went out and bought all the essential Universal Monster movies. So Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Wolf Man, and Creature From The Black Lagoon, all on seperate DVD's and this version was the Phantom movie of that collection. Now me personally I would have put the Lon Chaney version but I think it's still public domain. Like Universal owns the rights, kind of? And this is the one that comes packaged in every box set or nearly all of them. There's nothing wrong with that, but this is not the Phantom movie that pops in my head when I think of this character. In fact, the only other Monster movie that I can think of where you don't think of the original is The Mummy. Because there's been what, like 5 different Mummies? Imhotep, Kharis, the Hammer Mummy, the 90s Mummy, and now Sofia Boutella. Most people usually think of either the 90s or the original Mummy, but I'm getting off track here. Do recommend it for at least one viewing, and later this week it's Hammer time!

In Retrospect: The Mummy (2017)

I told you I didn't forget!

I'm so thrilled we get another one of these, granted not until 2019 but it will be worth it. So obviously The Mummy did a good job with not only gaining the revenue to show these movies would work in the future, but also with building the universe in which classic monsters are reborn. And I still attribute it to Sofia Boutella, you can get any big name star like Tom Cruise in a movie but the movie is called The Mummy for a reason so the film rides on her performance and I'm still head over heels about her and yet I can still look at her performance and say, yes she did a great job and I hope it won't be the last we see of Ahmanet. When I heard they would take on a more action/adventure tone with the Universal Monsters, I was worried but the movie was still very entertaining. I liked the movie a lot, it had brief but decent action, wonderful atmosphere in some scenes and the horror aspects can still be felt, so I can't say it wasn't a good movie. Not a lot of people know about the classic monsters, but boy howdy have I seen them popping up lately. From costumes, to these beautiful decorations found in regular stores not even specifically Halloween stores, they're coming back and it makes me proud. If you asked a normal person on the street how many Mummy movies Universal made, they might say 4 or 5, five if they count the Boris Karloff original when they made at least 9. These movies can create a new generation of monster movie fans, to make people watch not only The Mummy, but The Wolf Man, The Bride Of Frankenstein, even Creature From The Black Lagoon. There was a reason I talked about the classics my first October, because I was a fan and more people should watch those movies. So I applaud The Mummy, I applaud Universal for bringing them back, and I'm excited for the future of a new world of gods and monsters.

The Mummy (2017)

Oh Sofia Boutella......

What is wrong with people? All I heard about this before I saw it was this movie sucked, it's garbage, nothing really nice about it, and it was awesome! Now I might be biased because I am a very big fan of the Universal Monsters. I thought this movie was great! The action was decent, the comedy was hit or miss but nothing to ruin the movie, the horror aspect was quite good although I must admit it fell into the trope of jump scares, and even the cast ranged from not bad to holy hell can I marry you! Tom Cruise was fine, he did the job and he did it well so no complaints there, Russel Crowe as Dr. Jekell was an interesting choice but I would be lying if I said it was bad, Annabelle Wallis's character was just bland so I don't blame the actress I blame the character for not doing much to get me invested in her. And then there is Sofia. Oh God Sofia.....wow. Like dude, wow. You wanna talk great? You wanna talk awesome? You wanna talk sympathetic, creepy, terrifying, and a touch sexy? Bam, Sofia Boutella in The Mummy! Perfect! Love, love, love her in this movie! You are my golden girl now Sofia! Huh, what's that? This is supposed to be a review, so talk about the movie? Well fine then! The story was a great twist on the usual Mummy lore, with a princess destined to be the next pharaoh of Egypt until the pharaoh has a son and denies her of her throne, so she kinda....snapped and killed the pharaoh and the baby (kinda dark), and she even makes a pact with the Egyptian equivalent of Satan! Nice. But she gets captured, buried alive, and her tomb is not discovered for over 3000 years. So Tom Cruise wakes her up, thank you very much Mr. Cruise, she decides to wreck shit and be you know awesome and she even takes a certain fancy to Tom's character, damn you Mr. Cruise. But Russel Crowe has this kinda sorta secret league where they hunt monsters, and they try to take her down. So that's basic plot, and I found myself very interested cause I want this to work so bad. I need a cinematic universe of Universal Monsters! The monsters are back after 86 years. High time for a comeback! Go see this movie, if for no other reason than for me. You people can have your superhero movies always, but who has got the love for the monsters? I certainly do. So of course I highly recommend to see this movie in theaters, go watch it, be introduced to a new world of gods and monsters. And see if you can pick out those easter eggs in the glass jars! I have faith in you. Until next week.....

Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954)

Our Universal Monsters week ends with the Creature From The Black Lagoon.

Now you could say this a bit more like science fiction, but I think of it as a horror movie and a damn good one at that. The plot revolves around a group of scientists that discover an ancient amphibian fossil in the Amazon. The team soon discovers of a ghastly amphibian monster, and they decide to either fight or flee. First off, major praise to the director of the underwater sequences. It looks absolutely amazing, and the entire movie is shot well. Believe it or not, this film actually premiered in 3-D. Another huge plus is The Creature itself. Dear lord, the attention to detail on the suit is staggering and it is a genuinely creepy monster. Before the days of Jaws, The Creature made audiences afraid to go into the water. But unlike the shark, the monster has a love interest played by the stunningly gorgeous Julia Adams and quite frankly I can't blame him. And dare I say, the film should be remade in color. All in all, a great horror movie and one of the last classic Universal Monsters.

So next week, I think it's time we go back to the 80's and review a few cult movies.

The Invisible Man (1933)

This is easily one of my top 3 favorite Universal Monsters.

The Invisible Man, a very well adapted version of the H.G. Well's novel starring Claude Rains. The story follows a scientist Jack Griffin, who has discovered a formula to make himself invisible. He soon tries to find an antidote but before he can, he goes mad and runs amok. Now I love this movie, the special effects are amazing not just for the 1930's but for today as well since it was all done practically and I still have no idea how they did most of them, this definitely has a perfect blend of both comedy and horror, and the greatest aspect of the movie is Claude Rains himself. He has an absolutely fantastic voice for the role, showing sympathy and also ruthlessness in one of his most famous roles. What can I say? This a great movie, well worth your time and money and this is a film I will revisit for the rest of my life.

Well guys and gals, we only have one Universal Monster movie left tomorrow. And just for fun, I want you to take a guess as to which Universal Monster I will be for Halloween. The options are in the movies I have reviewed this week. See you tomorrow.

The Mummy (1932)

Yeah, this is not only a horror story but also a love story.

Now frankly, I love this movie because of it's love story elements in it. Now there is a bit of confusion to clear up before we continue with the review. This Mummy is not the same you probably think of. You probably think of a Mummy always in it's bandages, strangling people, and is more action orientated than horror. And you are correct that is the Universal Mummy, but not the same one in this movie. There were several Mummy sequels that followed a different Mummy named Karras where this one follows the Imhotep Mummy. Now that we got that out of the way, let's continue. The story follows a group of archeaologists who unearth an ancient Mummy that after being awakened is trying to reunite with his Mummy princess. Boris Karloff plays the Mummy to perfection, and he is such a better actor than what you see in Frankenstein. He has such a hypnotic voice and his appearance is fantastic. He towers over every other actor, speaks slow and low, has a groovy fez, and only kills when necessary. This is a perfect monster, and you will greatly enjoy this film. It's one of the prime examples of a horror classic.

Tomorrow we look at one of the funnest monster movies and most interesting special effects ever to come out of the 1930's.