Tod Browning’s Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, opened in theaters on Feb. 14th, 1931. As we already know, the success of this started the formula that over the next decade would become known as the Universal Classic Monsters, including along with Dracula, there would be Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Invisible Man (1933), and The Wolf Man (1941). Yes, the Creature from the Black Lagoon is considered as part of that team, but for this mission, we’re only going to focus on those first 5 character. Over the years, there has been many remakes, continuations, re-imaginings, and whatever else they want to call it these days when they take a character or story and twist and turn it into something they are looking for.
For this month’s mission, we’re going to celebrate those Famous Monsters and their cinematic ancestors. Not the actual movies, but the characters. Now this is where it gets a little tricky so pay attention. You will need to find and watch two horror films that you haven’t seen before that contain two of these characters: Dracula, Frankenstein (doctor or creature), a mummy, an invisible character, and a wolf man. So again, two different movies that must contain at least one of those characters. Instead of just grabbing two Dracula films or two werewolf films, I would ask that you pick two different characters for each of your titles, such as one Dracula title and one werewolf.
Also, when it comes to Dracula, it must be a film where Dracula is the character, not just a vampire flick. Same with the Frankenstein, it must contain the name. Could be a distant relative, such as Lady Frankenstein, but it can’t just be a mad science movie. As for the other 3 characters, a mummy is a mummy. Any of those would work, whether it is Imhotep, Kharis, Amenhotep, or any of the other mummy films. Same goes with the Invisible Man (or woman, or any character) and the Wolf Man, it can be any and doesn’t have to be related to the original character. If by chance there were one or two of those Universal titles that you never got around to, now is your chance to knock them off your list.
Make sense? If you’re not sure, feel free to email me and we can discuss.
Otherwise, you have until 11:59pm on Feb. 28th, to find and watch these two films and report back here. Good Luck.
kitleyskrypt.com 
Looking forward to this one!
LikeLiked by 1 person
#1 Victor Frankenstein (2015). I know you (Jon) love Frankenstein, but I think you would agree the story has been done to death. However, you know what? I actually really liked this one! The two leads are excellent actors, but what really sells this one is the cinematography. The use of color is really outstanding. The creature effects are also really good. Heck, even the plot is decent… rather than focus on the Monster and the aftermath, it focuses on the hunchback (Igor) and the buildup to the Monster, with failed experiments and the police on their trail. I’m shocked how much I liked this one. Maybe it’s just because I expected so little, but I give this a full seal of approval.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gavin, this is going to be another one of those that we are on way opposite sides of the road. I really couldn’t get past the story, with Igor actually not a hunchback, but just had a large cyst on his back? And from reading a few books while not performing at the circus, he taught him self medical science from a couple of books? Being a Frankenstein film, I went in to it really hoping it to be good, especially with the main two leads.
I probably didn’t notice the cinematography you mentioned because I was either shaking my head back and forth, or had face-palmed so many times it was blocking my vision!
Sorry to say, but I would NOT recommend this movie, so any soldiers looking for a title and haven’t seen this one….
LikeLike
To be fair, that’s more or less what a medical degree was before the 1900s… many doctors got to call themselves doctors after assisting in sawing off limbs in wartime. There wasn’t really much formal schooling in many places. 🙂
#2 BLADE TRINITY. We could quibble on whether or not this is horror. I mean, it’s action-heavy and based on a superhero comic book. But there’s a LOT of bloodsucking going on, and the main villain is Dracula, so I’m counting it.
I have mixed feelings on this one. For mindless entertainment it’s really good. The cast — wow! The soundtrack, awesome. I’ve been warming up to Jessica Biel lately, probably 20 years too late. The writing, however… especially the dialogue… it’s pretty bad. There is some sort of obsession with dick jokes. Ryan Reynolds doing his wisecracking thing is weirdly out of place. He spends a LOT of time talking about “horse humping,” “butt cheeks” and “thundercunts.” And then there’s Dracula. I get it. After being in like 1,000 movies, there’s only so many new spins you can put on Dracula. But this incarnation as an immortal Sumerian… didn’t work for me. Maybe it just wasn’t explained very well. And the vampire Pomeranian? Um. Funny, but out of place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
INVISIBLE STRANGLER (1978)
aka THE ASTRAL FACTOR
Now this was a dubious slice of vintage ’70s supernatural serial killer nonsense! With a scientific angle trying (in vain) to explain the titular ‘astral’ factor. And from a psychological angle, the killer also comes with a clichéd ‘mommy issues’ bonus explanation. It’s even got a revenge angle too, with our invisible psycho being an escaped convict, going after the blond beauty queens who once testified against him. Our killer’s modus operandi is strangulation. Although he gets more creative with a telekinetically moving car, a belly-piercing pitchfork and blazing guns later on. The film takes itself very seriously, which misfires way too often, making everything all the more funny. So, indeed, on general terms this may very well qualify as Turkey.
The plot mainly focuses on police investigator Robert Foxworth running around with his colleagues trying to find and stop the killer. Something they’re admittedly not very good at, as they usually end up arriving too late at the crime scenes. Or even resulting in worse incompetence, with one lady victim being strangled on stage during an ensemble dance performance, while the whole police team is watching, not having a clue it’s NOT part of the show. Or the scene where Foxworth notices abandoned diving equipment on a yacht (with two dead bodies on it) but fails to realize the killer might actually still be on the boat (as he can’t get off without his diving gear). And what about that one female police officer showing up to a potentially dangerous stakeout location – that would no doubt call for action, running and shooting – all dressed in uniform but… wearing high heels?
Apparently directed by three different people, it’s no surprise two different versions of the film allegedly exist. I have no idea which one I watched, but it contained many pellicule jump cuts and scratches. Which almost felt as if they cut out / censored some juicy bits. As some of the killings show a bit of shocking potential and eerie POV atmosphere – while others may look more ridiculous, with actresses having to pull silly faces while supposedly being strangled by invisible hands – I’d even say it’s a bit of a missed opportunity here that they didn’t show a little more glimpses at nudity and/or blood. After all, this was the late ’70s, so what made them hold back on some, uhm, artistic choices in that department? It’s not like the rest of the film is actually politically correct or morally justifiable anyway. Or not as if they were trying to portray any of the many women in this film as anything else but either helpless victims or grumpy, grudgeful, alcoholic trophy wives – Marianna Hill (!) from The Godfather: Part II and Messiah of Evil, being as such, hands down, surpassed here by Elke Sommer (!) from, well, you know her).
Our killer – I knew I had seen this actor before – is played by Frank Ashmore (from the ’80s alien invasion TV series V). We don’t get to see much of him – he’s ‘astrally invisible’, duh! – but his first two scenes are neat, showing off his psychic powers in prison and on a nightly graveyard. Obviously this is not a well made film. But you’ll nonetheless get some wonderful ‘static & glitter’ SFX moments and a doozy sound score out of it! The film’s end note is a hoot too, implying it never hurts to have a scantily dressed girlfriend like Stefanie Powers (!) hanging out at your place, who can lovingly put things into perspective and take your mind off things like, you know, astral projecting serial killers running amok in the city. Oh, and Robert Foxworth in this film is actually, ehr, well, just like Robert Foxworth again.
I can’t believe I just spent 655 words on this film. It must have left an impression.
I, FRANKENSTEIN (2014)
This movie only became clear to me – as in why it came to look like this, be what it is, the way it exists and its reason for existence as such – by the time I reached the end credits (which starts with the opening credits sequence that we didn’t get to see at the start of the movie) … They revealed it’s based on a graphic novel! It’s based on that thing comic books prefer to be called! And suddenly, the whole movie made sense to me. Well, some sense, at least.
So, if you’ve previously experienced and enjoyed the likes of, let’s say, Hugh Jackman’s Van Helsing, Wesley Snipes’ Blade trilogy, Robert Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes, Stephen Norrington’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the Underworld saga and what all Universal tried to accomplish with their Dark Universe concept (Dracula Untold and The Mummy) … Then you’re absolutely good to go with I, Frankenstein!
The film itself? It actually feels like watching an impressive video game, from start to finish, that you’re NOT allowed to play. Even the story starts off as a very familiar gaming experience: you get the prelude set-up (where previous film adaptations of Mary Shelley’s story usually ended, in this film it’s the beginning), then you get the current setting and the rules explained. Then it forgets about the characters, which is very convenient for both the writers and the viewers: they don’t need to develop them, and you don’t need to bother with looking for any in this film.
The casting? All of the ‘type’ variety (Bill Nighy, come on). And The Creature? Didn’t actually help matters for me that it felt (all the time) as if I was watching a beefed-up Ted Danson play the monster instead of Aaron Eckhart. Hah.
Funniest part? When Nighy introduces himself to Eckhart, going: “And you must be Frankenstein!” – Are you reading this, Jon? – As if the writers just knew they were going to get into fan trouble over this, they have Eckhart replying: “My name is Adam.” Almost had me in stitches. Pun intended. Hah.
After all is said and done, as a CGI fest and popcorn entertainment, I pretty much had no problem with this film. Frankenstein received yet another contemporary pop culture upgrade, a treatment that’s likely to occur every decade or so anyway. In that sense, the added aspect of ‘constructing an army of soulless dead beings, prepared for reanimation through possession by demons awaiting their reincarnation in the bowels of hell, to rise upon this earth and wage war upon humanity’s angelic gargoyle protectors and eradicate humankind in the process’ was kind of a nice touch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Astral Factor was a Turkey Day entry a few years ago and it fit perfectly! My favorite part of all of that is Foxworth’s partner that is constantly clicking his pen through just about every scene! To the point that every time he came onscreen, we were all waiting for it and cheered loudly when it happened!
As for I, Frankenstein, I went into this knowing fully what it was, and what it definitely wasn’t. Honestly, I didn’t care that it was based on a graphic novel and how people want to take a famous character and do whatever with them. But this was just plain stupid, in my opinion. Great cast, sure, but oh my, that writing, the story, and just about everything else. Except…I do really like the soundtrack!
LikeLike
Yes, Foxworth’s partner clicking his pen all the time. Noticed that too, haha. Had me wondering if the actor brought that to his role as kind of a ‘method acting’ thing. Or the director(s) just had fun with letting him do that. Either way, indeed, quite a ridiculous gimmick that draws attention to his character in almost every scene.
Didn’t really care about I, Frankenstein coming from a graphic novel either. It’s just that the whole time watching it, I was going: What kind of movie is this? How can they conceive something like this and make it look so boisterous but soulless? And present it as if it’s the greatest revamped, re-imagined version of one of the Universal Classic Monsters ever: turning The Monster into a super-hero? And then the end credits ‘based on the graphic novel’ reveal suddenly had me laughing and go: now it figures.
And to be clear, I didn’t like the casting either. I was merely joking around when dropping those names. I mean, in the ’90s, casting Robert De Niro as The Monster already raised some eyebrows, right? Did nobody during the casting or make-up tests of Aaron Eckhart pointed out that: Hey, we can’t have The Creature look like Ted Danson, folks! Seriously, has anyone seen Gulliver’s Travels (1996)? Way too funny to me, those similarities.
And Bill Nighy, as much as I like him as an all-round actor, when I saw the poster (after I watched the film) proclaiming “from the producers of Underworld” I just went: of course, that figures too now.
As for the soundtrack, Jon, its auditory qualities may have completely eluded me, because of what all on screen unfolded right before my eyes.
So to wrap things up on I, Frankenstein: I did not see a great film. But thanks to all of the above, I did have fun with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. House of Frankenstein (1944)
Synopsis: Escaping from jail, a mad scientist looks to continue his work and make those who were responsible for his imprisonment pay, by using Dr. Frankenstein’s notes and monster. Along the way he finds Dracula and the Wolfman who he uses to his own ends (along with his hunchbacked cell-mate) by use of promises and threats.
Review: As a child of the Friday night TV horror shows I absolutely love the Universal monsters. Somehow this is one I had never seen before. Made near the end of the Universal Monster cycle, this is a point where these movies were in a state of decline in both quality writing and direction. That being said, for a late sequel it is far superior to any late sequels done in the modern day (such as the late Friday the 13th, Halloween or Nightmare on Elm street sequels). The Dracula plot in the early portion of the movie feels tacked on just so they could include him somewhere in the movie. Having Carradine play the count was a distraction as well, but he did put an unusual spin to the count. (The wolfman story feels a bit tacked-on as well but makes sense considering this picks-up from where Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man left off.) Boris Karloff was as excellent as he always was, and is the main reason the movie works despite so many cliches in the story. And while a bit cliché, the story of Danny the hunchback, gives the story a human side and a character to empathize with. So, while not the best of the Universal monster movies it still was an enjoyable watch to see the legacy of the great ones as well as the continuation of the Story arcs of the previous films. I would recommend this to any fan of the classic horror movies, Boris Karloff fans, and any one that likes a good old fashion 30 or 40’s style horror.
2. Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004)
Synopsis: A girl infected with Lycanthropy uses injections of wolvesbane to hold off the disease but is mistaken as a junkie and placed in a home for adolescent girls dealing with drug abuse. As she tries to fight off the coming transformation (spurred by her coming of age), she is hunted by another werewolf and flees and hides with the help of a younger girl.
Review: I saw the original movie “Ginger Snaps” quite a few years back and thought it was “good, but not great.” I liked the idea of lycanthropy as a metaphor for a sexual awakening in a young teenager but felt the movie was missing something. This is a weird case of a sequel actually being better than the movie it was spawned from. In this movie the sister of Ginger is inflicted but while the original metaphor still stands, it is coupled with a counter metaphor; of drug addiction as a desire to control your life and hide form the horrors of life, only to find an entirely new set of horrors in their place. This movie is dark and disturbing painting a picture of a bleak, depressing world that the lead character lives within. Even without the monsters, we are shown there is plenty of horrifying aspects of the real world and the people in it that we should be afraid of. The movie makes it difficult to trust anyone, and the main character, is nearly the closest thing to a heroine, because at least she is trying to fight against her monstrous side. The end of the movie and the “fate” of Bridgette is especially dark. The one negative aspect of the movie are the special effects on the stalking werewolf. While better than CGI would have been, they look a bit rubbery and unreal. But the monster isn’t the real point of the movie anyway. Overall, I really liked this movie and would recommend it to people who like movies that use horror as metaphors, like dark, depressing movies, and movies that are more concerned with their story than gore and action. Also movies with dark twists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love the fact that you got to check off one of the original Universal classics. When I came up with the idea for this mission, knowing that most everyone would have probably seen all of those early classic, I was hoping that for those that didn’t, that this would give them that opportunity to fix that!
House of Frankenstein is one of my favorites of the later titles in the series, mainly because of that cast. I do agree that Carradine is quite different as Dracula, I do think he still brings that regal and intelligence needed for the role. And Chaney, even though he goes through the same old sad story in each movie, I could watch him each and every time and be entertained. Of course, I would watch anything with Karloff in it!
Believe it or not, this is the one Ginger Snaps movie that I have NOT seen. I was never a big fan of the original, which is why I never sought any of the sequels out, but did see the 3 one, which I believe is a prequel, which I liked less than the first one. But I know at some point, I do need to see this second entry. Maybe if in a pinch, I’ll watch it for my own mission this month!
LikeLike
I agree 100% on Carradine! He was hard to think of in place of Bela Lugosi…too different. But he did certainly give a great portrayal of a vampire of class & nobility!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very nice read on Ginger Snaps: Unleashed, Chris. I can certainly get behind all the themes, topics and metaphors you’re pointing out there. This second one might actually be, as a film, better constructed and more focused. Makes me even want to revisit the trilogy, reading about it now.
I can also concur with your “good, but not great” sentiment on the first film. It was certainly a refreshing, original werewolf at the time. I saw it upon release, before the buzz and praises would start to swell during the few years leading up to its sequel. So it indeed made me think: Wait, was it really that good? Or is everyone turning a blind eye to its flaws?
I actually also liked the 3rd film, very likely aided by the fact it’s a prequel and period piece. As such, it reminded me a bit of a mix between Antonia Bird’s Ravenous (1999) and the Fear Itself episode ‘The Sacrifice’ (2008).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am a big fan of the original Ginger Snaps, and the second film is so good but so depressing since it lacks the back-and-forth between the sisters. I’d forgotten the creepy little girl was played by Tatiana Maslany, who is such a fantastic actor.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the third instalment, I remember it as being good but also having the sense of it feeling like a school field trip to a historical fort. But with werewolves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
#1 – El Santo and the Vengeance of the Mummy
Been awhile since I have watched an El Santo movie, so now seemed like as good a time as any and this one did not disappoint. On a mission to discover some Mummy treasure, but as we all know Mummy tombs are usually cursed and this one is no different. Or is it, the Mummy probably would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky Santo. Two wrestling matches are won by El Santo, he adopts a boy, gets the girl and tells everyone horse meat is tasty to eat if it comes down to that. All in all you can’t ask for much more in a movie.
#2 – Werewolf in a Girl’s Dormitory
Despite the very misleading title, even though there is a werewolf in a girl’s dormitory. I thought this was going to be a rock n roll, I was a Teenage Werewolf kind of 50s campy film. Instead it is a really compelling Italian Who-Dun-it kind of flick. I have to say I was really taken aback by this and quite enjoyed it. Now on to find a one sheet poster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly, while I still have a lot of El Santo movies to get to, I have yet to be bored. They are always so much fun.
I caught Werewolf years ago but when I busted out Severin’s recent release, it was liking watching it for the first time. Didn’t remember much of it from before, but who knows what print that was back then.
And let me know how you do on that one-sheet search!
LikeLike
This is another great example of coming up with what I think is a pretty cool idea for a mission, then me realizing it might be a little harder for me than I thought. But then, when one considers the huge genre of horror films, there are plenty of titles out there for all of us!
The Unseen (2016) – A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to be on a podcast called Monster Party, where the subject was going to be invisible man movies. So in during a little research, I came across this Canadian film that blew me away. It is one of those that the obvious subject matter isn’t really the main point of the movie. A man is slowly becoming invisible, but not like he’s fading away, but parts of him are at a time. So there is a part where he lifts up his shirt, and you can see inside of his stomach and ribs. Everything is still there, just partially transparent. But the main point of the movie is him trying to see his daughter one last time before he kills himself because of what is happening to him.
There is a lot of unanswered questions here, which is one of the things I really liked about it. Might even take a couple of viewings to catch things you missed the first time around, but the effects are really well done and I really liked the story.
Howl (2015) – Seen this on Amazon but passed it up a few times. But figured now would be the time to check it out. A group of train passengers get stranded in the middle of the woods when their train breaks down. They soon realized they are being hunted by something outside. Something big and mean.
A different approach to werewolves, though, not entirely sure they are werewolves, but maybe just big wolf/man creatures. I am going to count it because when a person is bitten, they do turn into one of these beasts. Impressive effects and they looked practical, which is always nice. Worth seeing.
Bonus…Invisible Agent (1942) – One of the later entries in the Universal series. While the invisible effects are really well done, the charm of these has lost it’s charm on me. Not a bad movie, especially with Peter Lorre and Cedric Hardwicke, but just the same old invisible type slapstick humor that wore out pretty quickly on me. Plus, made during wartime, they don’t make the Germans look too smart either. Oh, a different time…
LikeLike
The Unseen was kind of boring, but those effects were amazing!
I think Howl is a fantastic film, very edge-of-your-seat. Absolutely love this one!
And yes, WWII films can really be tired, as the Universal Monsters were running out of steam and seem to only exist because of that measure of wartime propaganda blended in to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really like Howl: Kept me focused and guessing the whole time.
LikeLike
I really had to go dumpster diving this month.
DRACULA’S GUEST (2008)
Dracula, looking much like Nandor the Relentless, kidnaps Bram Stoker’s fiancée, spirits her away to Transylvania, rapes her, and sits back and waits for daddy, who happens to be from an immortal bloodline of vampire vanquishers.
FRANKENSTEIN: DAY OF THE BEAST (2011)
Remember the line of the monster’s dialogue from the novel, “I will be with you on your wedding night?” Frankenstein gets married, the monster picks off the bride’s bodyguards, then rapes her. She shoots herself because that’s obviously the worst thing that could happen to her, then she becomes a zombie and goes after her husband.
I am giving you all the spoilerific details because I trust you will learn from my mistakes and not watch these films. They are horrible and too mean-spirited to be candidates for Turkey Day marathons. They are grab bags of terrible acting, direction, wardrobes, scripts…pretty much everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Cate for jumping on both of those grenades! Sorry to hear you didn’t find something a little more entertaining. Maybe next time.
LikeLike
We got Monsters!
The Invisible Man 2020 / USA
This appears to be another attempt by Universal to re-boot their monster franchise. Thank heavens it is nowhere near as brain-numbingly stupid as the recent Mummy movie!
Cecilia has been in an abusive relationship with a rich sociopathic genius in the field of optics, Adrian Griffin. She escapes his clutches, but is terrified that he will find her. He is reported dead, but soon strange things start happening to Cecilia. It seems reports of Adrian’s death have been greatly exaggerated, and he has found Cecilia, and is making her life a living hell. Oh yeah, and it seems he is invisible to boot. Leading man in the field of optics, as you may recall. There are a few interesting twists, but they seem to only serve to extend the run time of the movie by an extra 15 minutes.
Surprisingly, for a movie made 87 years after the original, there are almost zero practical invisibility effects. Everything seems to be CGI. Not that the effects are bad – just that they are CGI.
IMO, this movie’s biggest failure is in not focusing on the Monster. The original movie was all about Jack Griffin and his decent into madness. This movie is all about Cecilia, and her seemingly impossible struggle against an unseen antagonist. This makes the movie’s focus on the victim instead of the Monster – shifting the focus away from the humanity of the Monster, and making him just another movie villain to be dealt with.
I didn’t hate it, but was hugely disappointed in the wasted potential.
Frankenstein vs. The Mummy 2016 / USA
All righty now – a two-fer! Victor (the name Frankenstein is not used until the very end of the film) is teaching at a university (and cobbling together body parts in his spare time). Naihla is an attractive archeology professor, who is just back from a dig in Egypt where a mummy of an obscure pharaoh was discovered, and brought back to the university. Victor and Naihla are attracted to each other, and after an initial date, plan another. Unfortunately, Victor gets caught up in an impromptu brain transfer, and misses the date. (Really, he does the operation – brain from one body to another, in less than two hours! He’s that good!) Anyway, his monster lives! But wait…at the same time, the mummy is brought back to life. Now, the mummy thinks Naihla is the sorceress that put the curse on him that causes him to live eternally. Meanwhile, the monster wants Naihla as a bargaining chip to get Victor to put his brain in a better body (you know, one that doesn’t look like a movie monster). So, both are after Naihla, and of course meet up in pursuit of her. Let’s get ready to Rumble!!
Overall, this was a fun little monster mash-up, and you won’t feel embarrassed that you spent the time watching this.
Bonus movie!
Dracula 1968 / UK
Back in the 60’s Thames TV had a series called Mystery and Imagination, which did mostly 50 minute episodes, but had a 75 minute production of Dracula and Frankenstein.
Denholm Elliot is a passable Dracula, but again, little of the run time is spent on him. Steward, Van Helsing, Harker, Mina, and Lucy get more time than the Count. There are several variations from the story, but what can you expect from a 75 minute television production with a Doctor Who budget. The most noticeable thing about this was that fact that they had Dracula’s fangs on the center teeth (ala Nosferatu) rather than on the canines.
Passable viewing if you get the opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob, I’m on the exact same wavelength as you when it comes to the recent Invisible Man. If you’re movie is called that, then that better be the main point of the movie. Kind of like having a Godzilla movie with Big G only in 15 minutes of it!
And I got to say, after reading your thoughts on Frankenstein vs the Mummy… I kind of want to see it!
I also have seen the version of Dracula with Elliot which blew me away when I first discovered it. Never had even heard of a version with him. In that same series, there is an adaptation of Frankenstein with Ian Holm playing both the creature AND the doctor!
LikeLike
I agree, “Invisible Man” was maybe not the best title for this movie, but it was a gut-wrenching story of a woman being gaslit by an abusive partner. Seeing James Bond technology brought to the invisible man story was kind of interesting, but if I had that tech, I can think of better things to do with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An American Werewolf in Paris (1997)
Three college guys head to Paris looking for ladies, parties, and an opportunity to bungie jump off the Eifle Tower. Although successful in their quest, they unfortunately also run into an underground werewolf coven. Or maybe not unfortunately as I’ve never seen characters more deserving of being eaten by atrocious CGI werewolves. Almost any good element present in An American Werewolf in London feels tainted here. The transformations look fake and nearly painless compared to the horrific ones in the original. The dark humor is replaced with bad college bro humor. The lore makes almost no sense. I asked my husband if he could think of any redeeming qualities, and he began ranting about all its awful qualities again.
Frankenstein 1910
This was probably the oldest film on my list of things to see, so I’m really glad for this push to watch it. This short silent film is very basic in plot (my husband joked it’s like the Cliffnotes version). Still, the special effects are really cool, especially the eerie creation of the monster sequence. I liked how the film plays with mirrors as well. This movie is in the public domain and is free to watch!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Werewolf in Paris is one of those perfect examples to bring up arguing about sequels. And CGI for that matter. As you said, everything that works in the first one does not in this one. Oof…But on a good note, Paul Naschy said that while he was in New York for a convention, he saw this in the theater and felt like he should get back in the game because he knew he could make something better than that one!
I’m thrilled to hear you checked out the 1910 version. While not a feature film, I’ll still count it because it is the earliest version of the film and really is a must see for horror fans. I am still amazed at the special effects, that I think works really well there. Well done!
LikeLike
Is it bad that I’ve watched An American Werewolf in Paris multiple times? Willingly? 😂 It’s just one of those movies that if I find it on TV, I will watch it.
Oh man I have to find some better quality films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Movie #1: Wolfman (1941)
I avoided this film, because I felt like over the years I already knew the story. I saw clips and stills of this version, remakes, and anything else that has stemmed from it. I’m really happy to say I finally took the time to watch it. I had no idea Bela was the Wolfman before Lon Chaney Jr. I am a big fan of Bela and that was a great surprise that has never been spoiled for me. This movie was fantastic. I love Universal Monster movies and knew I wouldn’t be disappointed.
Movie #2: House of Dracula (1945)
Erich’s pick was House of Frankenstein and mine was House of Dracula. Unfortunately, we watched them backwards. (Dracula first and then Frankenstein) That’s okay, though. They were still really fun to watch. We both are huge fans of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, and the whole idea of all the monsters getting together in one film will never get old for us. I was bummed that John Carradine was Dracula and not Bela, but I didn’t let it ruin the movie for me. It just took a little adjusting for me to accept it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to say, I am surprised at the titles you and Erich chose. I would have thought you guys cleared off these classics long ago. But then I’m thrilled we gave you the opportunity to do that now!
The Wolf Man is a really well made film that really still holds up. Chaney is so good as the tortured Talbot.
I’ve always enjoyed Carradine’s performance as Dracula, though he is no Lugosi, that is for sure.
LikeLike
Movie 1: The Invisible Man (1933)
I hadn’t been putting this one off, I had been unable to find a copy. This month’s mission forced to me to try harder to find it. Luckily, I was able to stream/buy it. Holy cow! Was it totally worth the wait! Claude Rains was phenomenally EVIL! I absolutely loved this picture; from the performances to the effects that I think still hold up quite well. I actually might read the H.G. Wells novel that inspired it. (I love Wells.) Overall, a fantastic flick that I’m happy to have shelled out a few bucks to own digitally.
Movie 2: The House of Frankenstein
To be honest; this is kind of phase 2 of the Universal Monsters for me. A lot of the original actors had moved on to other projects and they were all appearing in each others’ features (The Monsters) Although I loved the concept in Abbot and Costello Meet the Wolfman; I thought that it might be hokey as serious films. I was wrong! Even though John Carradine as Dracula (with a top hat [settle down, Mandrake!]) was quite a stray away from Bela, I was able to put that aside and enjoy the film for what it is—a Monster Crossover! I loved it and enjoyed The House of Dracula. Despite watching them out of order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See my comments above to Ashley, but again, so happy you guys go to check out these classics.
Being I recently wrote the retrospective on The Invisible Man for HorrorHound, I had revisited that (a few times) a month or two ago and it still packs a punch.
Out of the two Universal “House” movies, House of Frankenstein will always be my favorite, but that is probably because of Karloff. Although, House of Dracula is the only film where Chaney is cured!
LikeLike
This month’s mission was the perfect excuse for me to finally open my Universal Monsters box set. I’ve seen the main features many times, but not the various sequels, spinoffs, etc. so why not now?
My first pick was SON OF DRACULA (1943), starring Lon Chaney Jr. The film hits the ground running with the imminent arrival of Count Alucard to the United States, specifically Dark Oaks, a plantation in the deep south. Alucard is due to arrive at the behest of Kathy Caldwell, an heiress with a “morbid” interest in the Count. At first, I thought she would be a secondary character and/or victim of Alucard, but the story as presented, with many clever twists to the stock monster plot, made for a fun and engaging time.
While not being my first choice to play a relative of The Count, Chaney did give an engaging and imposing performance, though wisely limited in screen time. Louise Albritton as the scheming Kathy is anything but your run of the mill shrinking violet scream queen. But it’s Frank Craven’s presence as Dr. Brewster, taking the lion’s share of screen time, that stole the show for me. In his performance, I could see ripples that would resonate later on with Van Helsing-types from Peter Cushing to Roddy McDowell.
The locale and trappings of the film brought a familiar though fresh take on the gothic nature of the Dracula story. Sure, the budget is small, but the bayou marsh, it’s creepy trees and fog give off a palpable sense of dread.
Directed by Robert Siodmark, written by Eric Taylor from an original story by Robert’s brother and fellow film powerhouse, Curt, SON OF DRACULA manages to maintain the quality of Universal’s previous vampire films, the original DRACULA (1931) and DRACULA’S DAUGHTER (1936), while providing a breath of fresh air through the musty old coffin. RECOMMENDED
My second choice for this month’s mission was regrettably SHE-WOLF OF LONDON (1946) starring the lovely, but miscast June Lockhart, best known for her work on tv’s LASSIE and LOST IN SPACE, and DON PORTER, GIDGET’s dad from the Sally Field series of the 1960s.
The film revolves around several murders taking place in a London park in the late 1800s attributed to a she-wolf. How the police know it was a she-wolf and not a he-wolf is never explained, but like so much of the movie, assumed. “You saw the title, you’ve paid your admission, just go with it!”
I’m not sure what I had in mind when I chose this film for this mission exactly, maybe assuming (There’s that word again!) that it would be a contemporary, World War 2 picture with some teeth. Seeing its running time listed as 61 minutes, I thought “so much, the better.” Little did I realize that 61 minutes would feel like three days!
To say this film is a slog to get through, is a detriment to slogs everywhere. It’s basically 1940’s GASLIGHT as a werewolf picture, only with somnambulist acting and a flat-lined plot. Lockhart is too cute to every be truly suspected as being the titular she-wolf and the resulting investigation leaves no doubt as to who really is inflicted with the “Allenby Curse.”
While it’s nice to have the film included in the box set to please completists, it’s not one I see myself every watching again anytime soon. AVOID
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I came up with this mission, I had just assumed that most of the soldiers would have seen all the classics, but I’m thrilled to see that some of you have checked off those classics that you haven’t seen. WELL DONE!
I’m right there with you on Son of Dracula. Kind of like Naschy in Count Dracula’s Great Love, totally misscast but great film none the less.
And the less we talk about She-Wolf the better….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust in the nick of time!
FRANKENSTEIN’S GREAT AUNT TILLIE (1984) d. Myron J. Gold (UK/Mexico) (IMDb rating 2.5)
Wow. 10 years after Young Frankenstein knocked it out of the park, good old writer/director Myron comes along to show us how devastatingly unfunny a classic horror/comedy can be. Six days before the loan defaults on the Frankenstein estate (with proceeds reverting back to the greedy town elders, led by Aldo Ray), a long-lost relative of the Baron (Donald Pleasance) shows up along with his sister Matilda (Yvonne Furneaux) and his sexy and busty consort Randy (June Wilkinson). Matilda wants to win the town’s car race, the Baron wants to find the mythical buried treasure in the castle, and Randy wants to lie down and rest her aching back. Naturally, they uncover the blue-skinned remains of the original creature and set about resurrecting him because, well, because it’s a Frankenstein movie. Pleasance rambles and gambols his way through the flick, playing fast and loose with diction and motivation, and Furneaux is a long, long way from her heyday working for Terence Fisher (The Mummy), Roman Polanski (Repulsion), and Federico Fellini (La Dolce Vita). Everyone else seems to be trying as hard as they can to pump some energy into this rotting corpse of celluloid with the effort felt and no pulse to be found. What a mess.
VOODOO BLACK EXORCIST (1974) d. Manuel Caño (Spain) (IMDb rating 2.8)
Despite trying to cash in on the name of William Friedkin’s possession classic, this is really a mummy movie in disguise. Things kick off “2000 years ago” with two men fighting over the love of a woman on Caribbean island… all sporting black face (and body) paint. After one kills the other, there is a big ceremony wherein the woman is beheaded and the high priest is mummified while topless women dance around the fire. That’s the first five minutes, folks. From there, we fast forward to a pleasure cruise “2000 years later” where a sarcophagus is loaded onto the ship and our high priest’s mummy steps out all dusty and crusty, although he quickly reverts to a much suaver persona of Guede (Aldo Sambrell, happily sans the Al Jolson act) and starts mowing down random passengers. Wouldn’t you know it, he crosses paths with the reincarnation of his lady love Sylvia (Eva Leon), who is riding on the arm of a stuffy Professor Kessling (Alfredo Mayo) who is the new owner of the sarcophagus in question. The rest of the bonkers proceedings involve Guede killing off passengers to keep himself from reverting to his mummified state and Kessling trying to keep his new find under wraps (HEYO), while Sylvia tries to keep her clothes on and resist the two-centuries-old siren call of l’amour. It’s ridiculous and wonderful Turkey material for the whole family.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t remember Great Aunt Tillie being that funny. Then again, besides Young Frankenstein, I’m trying to think of another version of it that was played for laughs and actually worked. When I finally got around to Carry On Screaming, I just thought it was rather silly.
But I am very anxious to see Voodoo Black Exorcist!
LikeLike
You didn’t remember it being that funny because, well, it isn’t. (That said, I do have a soft spot for Carry On Screaming, although I haven’t seen it for a while so who knows how it will hold up.)
LikeLike