HYPNOGORIA 202 - The History of Universal Horror Part XX

The final frights of 1944 find Lon Chaney Jnr. looking through Dead Man's Eyes, spectral shenanigans in Murder in the Blue Room, Kharis walking for a final time in The Mummy's Curse, and the famous monsters meeting up at the House of Frankenstein! 

DIRECT DOWNLOAD - The History of Universal Horror Part XX

Find all the podcasts in the HYPNOGORIA family here -

HYPNOGORIA HOME DOMAIN - Full archive, RSS feed and other useful links

HYPNOGORIA on iTunes

HYPNOGORIA on STITCHER

HYPNOGORIA on TUNE IN

HYPNOGORIA ON GOOGLE PLAY PODCASTS

Become a Patron!

HYPNOBOBS 85 - Even A Man Who Is Pure In Heart...

Even a man who is pure in heart 

And says his prayers by night,

May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms

And the autumn moon is bright

Continuing what is turning into Werewolf Month here in the Great Library of Dreams, Mr Jim Moon rambles at great length about the 1941 Universal classic The Wolf Man starring Lon Chaney Jnr. Along the way we learn about the history of the Universal Monsters and just where the werewolf's vulnerability to silver actually comes from...

DIRECT DOWNLOAD - Even A Man Who Is Pure In Heart...

Find all the podcasts in the HYPNOGORIA family here -

HYPNOGORIA HOME DOMAIN - Full archive, RSS feed and other useful links

HYPNOGORIA on iTunes

HYPNOGORIA on STITCHER

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

THE UNIVERSAL WEREWOLF Part I - The Werewolf of London

Even a critic who is pure in heart,
And watches films at night,
May let some spoilers slip,
While penning spurious shite!

The movies hold an enormous power to influence the popular imagination. For example, one of the classic tenets of vampirism, that sunlight destroys the undead monsters, come not from centuries old folklore but 1922 when FW Murnau had the very cinematic mechanism of the rays of dawn vanquish Graf Orlock in Nosferatu. Similarly Browning’s Dracula created an image of the Count that has brushed away the moustachioed and varyingly aged vampire Stoker created. And James Whale had an even bigger influence when he made the 1931 Frankenstein; such a successful reimagining of the classic novel that it is has supplanted Mary Shelley’s vision in the public imagination as the ‘proper’ version.

And the humble werewolf, although he has haunted our stories since the dawn of time, has not been immune to the influence of Hollywood. Indeed as we shall see, Universal’s films of the ‘30s and 40s have had a profound effect on the legend and lore of the werewolf …

The earliest screen lycanthrope I can find is a 1913 feature called The Werewolf. This silent short featured a Navajo witch who gained the power to transform into a wolf, and subsequently her daughter, whom she passes the power onto, uses it to take revenge on the invading white settlers. The film is now lost sadly but it’s worth noting that it was a very early foray into the macabre from Universal Studios, a field they would later make their own.

Next came another silent feature Wolf Blood in 1925, which though not technically a horror film, does feature some werewolf action in the last quarter. In this feature, a logger receives a blood transfusion from a wolf and shortly afterwards his fellow loggers begin dying. Here the lycanthropy is a hallucinatory phenomena rather than a physical transformation but it’s worth mentioning as it’s the first of many films that will bring psychological theme into a werewolf narrative.

It was not until 1935, when Universal unleashed The Werewolf of London that we get a proper full length werewolf feature. Often wrongly credited as the first werewolf film, but it is the earliest surviving horror picture dealing with lycanthropy. Like 1932’s The Mummy, this first werewolf talkie was an attempt to create an original screen monster, one not drawn from the pages of literature. But for a variety of reasons, this film somehow failed to capture the public’s imagination and didn’t recreate the successes of Dracula and Frankenstein for Universal. And also like the Mummy, the werewolf would have to wait until the ‘40s for silver nitrate and celluloid to do their alchemical magic and conjure forth creatures to haunt the 20th century imagination.

But The Werewolf of London does lay the foundations for the cinematic reinvention of werewolvery. To begin, this Henry Hull vehicle also brings us the hugely important idea that lycanthropy is an infectious condition, for this is a marked break with the original folklore.

Anyone studying the traditions, legends and lore of the werewolf will be somewhat surprised to discover that it is actually extremely rare to find lycanthropy being passed on through receiving a wound from a werewolf. Generally speaking, historical werebeasts are created most often by two means. Firstly the condition was a curse – sometimes from a witch or sorcerer as revenge, sometimes by the gods as a punishment, and occasionally as a trait passed down through families - and this method tends to be prevalent in the earlier tales of shape shifters. Secondly, and certainly the more frequent in later times, one became a werewolf deliberately through the use of magic. There’s a host of different methods documented - strange ritual acts like drinking water from a wolf’s paw print or consuming wolf brains, and a host of disgusting recipes for potions and elixirs – but a perennial element of the magical process is the wearing of clothes or a belt made from the skin of a wolf.

And this choosing to become a monster for one’s own purposes, usually for evil (but interestingly not exclusively), was particularly common in Europe. Most people are aware of the infamous witch trials that pepper Western history, but what is less well known is that there were similar outbreaks of public hysteria surrounding werewolves with waves of cases being brought to the courts, particularly in France and Germany in the Middle Ages. The trial of Jean Grenier is fairly typical – click here for a splendidly lurid retelling of the tale.

(Though it should be noted, Grenier was far more fortunate than many accused of shape shifting. A common belief, dating back at least as far as the Roman era, was that werewolves possessed a double skin – human on the outside and lupine within – and that they literally turned their hides inside out to change. Hence the Latin term for the creatures is versipellis, which translates as ‘turn skin’, and a standard test for werewolvery was to be flayed to see if the accused was furry on the inside. Grenier was lucky on two counts; firstly not to be subjected to this often fatal procedure, and secondly to have a judge who considered that there was more madness than black magic at the heart of his crimes.)

This kind of magically created werewolf dominated the stories and legends for centuries, and in the main was seen as an agent of evil. When gothic fiction arrived, some like Captain Frederick Marryat in The White Wolf of the Hartz Mountains (1839) continued the satanic tradition with werewolves that were clearly allied with the powers of darkness, but other works such as Wagner the Werewolf (1847) revived lycanthropy as a curse and introduced the now familiar trope of the decent man doomed to change into an evil beast. Gothic fiction was often as concerned with questions of theology and morality as it was crumbling castles and clanking chains, and hence the concept of the werewolf offered an arena to explore the dividing lines between man and animal and good and evil.

And perhaps the most enduring expedition into this territory, is Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886), which while not technically a werewolf tale, certainly borrows heavily from both mythological and gothic lycanthropy. The smoking potion clearly is the scientific descendant of the medieval elixirs, and created from similar drives alter individual morality in a physical fashion. Yet the results of Jekyll’s experiments are clearly the same tortured moral dilemmas of a gothic hero. And there is more than touch of Stevenson’s good doctor in the character of Dr Glendon in The Werewolf of London.

However it is in The Werewolf of London that establishes the idea that lycanthropy is transmissible like vampirism. And as far as I can tell, this is possibly the first instance of becoming a werewolf by infection in fiction. Marryat’s lupine femme fatale is diabolic creation, Wagner’s condition is the catch in a deal with Dr Faustus and Bertrand in Guy Endore’s The Werewolf of Paris has lycanthropy as a hereditary curse.

Now down the centuries in European folklore, vampires and werewolves have been closely aligned in the legends of many different regions. Some traditions hold that a slain werewolf rises again as a vampire, some that the reverse is true, and yet others have the werewolf as a supernatural guardian that protects people and crops from vampires and witches*. To further confuse the issue, in Southern Europe, particularly in the Balkans, the same terms have been used to describe both creatures – vrykolaka and vurdulak.

However in the case of this Universal film, it’s a good bet that the writers were actually cribbing the plot dynamics from Dracula; something also seen, but more overtly, in The Mummy which appears to be using the 1931 Browning adaption of Dracula as a plot template. However Stoker, having studied Southern and Eastern European folklore, noted the blurring of the lines between the vampire and the werewolf and hence his immortal Count has more than a touch of the lycanthrope about him. Aside from the obvious shape shifting into what witnesses describe as a large black hound, Dracula is not dissimilar to the willing werewolves of the Middle Ages. What many people don’t realise is that the Count has an origin story of sorts, outlined by Van Helsing in Chapter 18. His vampirism is linked to the practice of the dark arts learned at the legendary Scholomanse, a secret school presided over by the Devil himself.

So this borrowing back of elements from Dracula is fair trade. And this new idea of lycanthropy as an occult kind of transmissible disease was to be hugely influential. However this is not the only addition the mythos presented in The Werewolf of London.

Although the medieval writer Gervase of Tilbury associates the full moon with werewolf transformations and a handful of rituals to become lycanthropic that either specify performing the rites under the full moon or utilise its rays, mainly this phase of our planet’s satellite does not figure much in lycanthropy through the ages. After all, curses could be a permanent change of shape or be tied to a variety of different significant times, while the career werewolf could change whenever they chanted the spell, quaffed the potion or donned the wolf skins. However The Werewolf of London has the full moon as a key part of the transformation process, and so far my researches into werewolf fiction have yet to uncover a literary precedent, so it is possible that this is the first instance of the full moon lore (if you know any different leave a comment or drop me a line).

So, although it is often glossed over in horror movie history, this movie deserves a good deal more attention than the usual write-off as a botched dry run for The Wolf Man. Admittedly, Universal’s second treatment of the creature is a much superior film, but it draws a great deal more from its predecessor than merely learning from its mistakes.



While searching in the wilds of Tibet for the exceedingly rare plant, the Mariphasa Lumina Lupina, noted botanist Dr Glendon (Henry Hull) is attacked and wounded by a strange man beast. On returning to London with the plant, he encounters the mysterious Dr Yogami (Warner Oland) who reveals that the flowers of the Mariphasa may be a cure for lycanthropy and hints heavily that it was he who attacked Glendon and now he bears the same condition as a result. Naturally as a man of science, Glendon does not believe in werewolves until while using a special lamp that simulates moonlight on the night blooming Mariphasa his hand begins to change…

…And you can probably guess the rest – Glendon struggles to contain his feral alter ego and fails to find a cure before he is killed menacing his loved ones - the typical werewolf movie plot in other words. But it must be remembered that for the time, this was anything but standard werewolf fare, indeed it’s from this film we derive a lot of the familiar elements of modern werewolf stories. However, there is also a good deal in The Werewolf of London which is quite novel in the lycanthrope canon.

To begin with placing the genesis of the lycanthropy in Tibet is an interesting alternative to the usual Old World werewolf stylings, giving the movie the exotic oriental flavour that was popular in works as diverse as the Fu Manchu saga and the National Geographic reports of Dr Joseph Rock. Rock was an explorer and botanist, and his accounts of his travels in Tibet are said to have inspired the best selling 1993 novel Lost Horizon which established Tibet as a mystical milieu in fiction and the parallels between Glendon and Rock are obvious.

However The Werewolf of London does not draw upon the magical potential of its Far East opening locale, as it is science rather than folklore that will dominate the movie. The MacGuffin of the movie, the Mariphasa plant, is presented as a possible source for a biological treatment for werewolvery rather than an occult cure. And there is more than a touch of science fiction in the film: Dr Glendon has a hot house filled with bizarre carnivorous plants, his own hi tech secure laboratory with a futuristic looking lamp that produces artificial moonlight and a proto CCTV array so he can see anyone approaching the locked door.

However, all the scientific stylings do not preclude the supernatural and the film wisely doesn’t offer us some cod scientific explanation of lycanthropy. What we do get however is the birth of the familiar full moon mythos. But in The Werewolf of London, the full moon is somewhat more significant than usual, as according to an ancient tome of werewolvery Glendon consults, a werewolf must kill on the nights when the moon is full in order to stave off becoming a beast permanently.

Although The Wolf Man would later elaborate on the full moon’s role and fix it forever in the minds of the public, so far no subsequent werewolf stories have picked up on the intriguing concept. The idea that the lycanthrope must kill in order to retain its dual form is a great plot twist, and it’s a shame no one has thought to resurrect it.

However, the Werewolf of London doesn’t exactly capitalise on the concept either. On the third night of the full moon Glendon is thwarted in his attempt to kill, yet the script seems to have forgotten the rule it introduced earlier and the next morning the good doctor has transformed back into an English gent again. Instead the film seems to switch focus onto another piece of lore - this time delivered to Glendon by Dr Yogami - that the werewolf will always seek out and kill that which they love most. But considering what a staple of the lycanthrope stories this plot has become, I’m inclined to forgive the movie for ignoring the old tome’s lore.

Certainly concentrating on Yogami’s warning meshes better with the overall plot. The key relationship in The Werewolf of London is between Glendon and his wife Lisa, whose marriage is showing the strain Glendon being tied to his work and researches. At the same time he is infected with lycanthropy, Lisa has encountered her childhood beau, Paul, who soon notices her dissatisfaction with her forever working husband. Naturally an intelligent fellow like Doc Glendon also spots her unhappiness and the temptation posed by Paul but as the moon grows full, he has no choice but to sequester himself further. And aside from imbuing the werewolf myth with a psycho-sexual subtext, it also introduces another classic lycanthrope plot device - in order to prevent himself killing, Glendon attempts to cage himself prior to moon rise.

So then, here we have a movie that is brimming with imagination, coupled with a fascinating plot and is breaking new ground left, right and centre for the werewolf mythos. And yet despite all these strengths, the movie flopped and its critical reputation hasn’t exactly blossomed over the subsequent decades either. So what went wrong?

Over the years, the main contender for the fatal flaw has been the titular werewolf himself. Many have fingered the make up as being insufficiently wolfish – and certainly looking at the make up job with post Wolf Man eyes he certainly looks insufficiently hairy to be a lycanthrope. In a quick straw poll, I showed several friends who are unfamiliar with early horror movie history, a still of Doc Glendon and asked them to identify the monster...



And all bar one (a spoilt ballot that read 'is this Ron Pearlman's dad?') guessed it was an early Mr Hyde as I suspected would be the case.

Now, the standard story behind the effects goes something like this – legendary make-up man Jack Pierce originally devised a far more hirsute werewolf – and according to some the very combination of appliances and yak hair Lon Chaney would don several years later. However Henry Hull was not keen on being subjected to the long hours in the make-up chair and hence Pierce created a simpler look for the beast which was quicker to apply and consequently a lot less furry.

However, personally I tend to think that Jeremy Dyson is quite right to wonder if this piece of movie lore is apocryphal. As the paperwork shunted between the studio execs and the film makers are now sadly destroyed, there is now no evidence to consult to discover the truth. But I think Dyson’s view, found in his excellent book Bright Darkness, that it is exceedingly unlikely that Universal would bow to pressure from an actor of Hull’s status is nearer the mark. Although he had been appearing in films since 1917, it was only the previous year he had transcended bit part work and garnered the attention of the studio bosses with his portrayal of Magwitch in Great Expectations. So he certainly didn’t have the star clout to veto a make up job.

And considering how important and influential Jack Pierce was at the time, and indeed knowing how much of a prima donna Pierce could be, it’s very unlikely he would have allowed an actor getting his first top billing in a major feature to dictate terms in this fashion. More likely I think, is that after the film failed to ignite the box office or make Hull an icon like Karloff and Lugosi, the reasoning behind the make-up was reconned by Universal or possibly Pierce himself.

But despite looking a little bald to modern viewers, Pierce’s make up work is still top notch. And it’s important to remember that we are seeing the first screen wolf man. Although folklore and legend occasionally has depicted the lycanthrope as a bipedal wolf, in the main the old tales usually maintain that the werewolf transforms completely into an animal. Now such a transmutation brings a whole mess of problems for a film maker and so The Werewolf of London cannily has Dr Yogami tell Glendon and the audience, that contrary to legend, the werewolf does not change into a wolf but a hybrid creature that combines the worst features of both species.

And this is a salient point as the altered Glendon behaves in a fashion somewhat different from other fictional werewolves. While he is still a raging beast most of the time, he does display unusual characteristics informed by the twist to the mythos in the script. He appears to retain a high degree of intelligence – for example, when venturing out to hunt the shadowed London streets he dons a voluminous overcoat and a large cap to disguise his monstrous form.

But while this is an interesting idea, the script never develops it sufficient to work properly. As the Glendon-wolf never comes across as having a distinct and separate personality of its own but retains a very human-like intelligence, this ultimately serves to undercut the savagery of the werewolf itself. Furthermore, the audience is left in something of a muddle as to how much control Glendon has in his shifted form, and this becomes a major factor in the effectiveness of the grand finale.

At the film’s close, when Glendon is finally gunned down, we get another familiar werewolf trope making an early outing – the dying speech forgiving his slayers and the now cliché ‘you killed me but you’ve saved my soul” routine. But the problem is that in this movie, the speech is delivered BEFORE Glendon transforms back into his human form. Now this breaks all the rules of dying transformed man-monsters for the modern viewer, but I think it also struck all the wrong dramatic notes for audiences back in the day. As Glendon’s final words are delivered while he still in beast form, instead of feeling pathos for the doomed doc, the audience is left rather surprised werewolves are so loquacious.

Another reason often trotted out for The Werewolf of London flopping with audiences over the years is that Glendon as played by Hull is too cold a character for audiences to sympathise with. But I’d contend that the role is written to be cool and scientific – the focus of the script isn’t to invoke sympathy for the lead character as The Wolf Man does, rather the key dynamic is that Glendon is so driven by his researches that he is already losing touch with his humanity before he’s bitten by Yogami. In fact, the script actually presents Doctor Yogami as the sympathetic character; he is far more the usual tortured lycanthrope than Glendon is – a very interesting twist for a character that in a less imaginative script would have been written as a conventional villain.

The tragedy of Dr Glendon isn’t that he suffers the torment of lycanthropy like Larry Talbot, but that his commitment to science is destroying his marriage and makes him ignore the warnings of Yogami. And the cruel irony is that he must isolate himself further to continue the very research that is wrecking his relationship with Lisa in order to cure his condition, and more importantly, save her life. His lycanthropy can be seen as an outburst of his repressed emotions, and it’s no coincidence that in the final act he breaks free from the ancient hermit’s cell when he spots Lisa out walking with Paul through the bars. His predicament echoes both the ancient myths and fables that preceded it where a divine punishment mirrors the sinner’s crime, and the myriad mad scientist yarns that would follow where the pursuit of knowledge comes at a high personal cost.

But at the ending of tale, where such ironies of fate should resonate, is botched by having Glendon deliver his final oratory in monster form. This robs the film of a satisfying symbolic close; the proper order of events in such a tale should be that the transforming spell is broken, he regains his rightful shape and then his humanity is reasserted leaving the viewer with a sense that good has triumphed, albeit at great cost, over evil and normalcy has been restored. Instead the close of The Werewolf of London has you almost wondering if Glendon’s human side was not quite as in thrall to the wolf as they’ve made out.

And I strongly feel that it is this botching of the conclusion that has damaged the film far more than a furless werewolf or an unsympathetic hero. Now the film has other flaws; for example the script has Yogami referring to werewolvery as ‘lycanthrophobia’ rather than ‘lycanthropy’, a trio of tipsy old ladies for comic relief, and director Stuart Walker seems unsure whether to emphasise the gothic or the contemporary, but it is the simple misplacement of Glendon’s last words is what effectively stops the film from becoming the properly rounded mythic tale it should be.

But folks, I come not to bury this film but to resurrect it. In all fairness, Universal’s Dracula is as equally hampered by Todd Browning’s static direction as The Werewolf of London is by its slightly uneven scripting. Yet the former is regarded as a classic while the latter is often relegated to footnote status. And while it is perfectly true that The Wolf Man would bring werewolvery to the screen in a far more accomplished manner, as we have seen The Werewolf of London establishes a huge part of the modern werewolf mythos. And for these innovations alone, the film deserves a better reputation than it currently enjoys.

But aside from meriting a place both in movie history and modern myth making, The Werewolf of London has much to recommend it. Once you separate the film from the shadow of The Wolf Man, you discover a very unique take on the werewolf, bursting with imagination. Admittedly it never generates the atmosphere of either Dracula or Frankenstein but it is still very entertaining, with solid performances from the leads and some memorable visuals. And whether loping about in tweedy impertinence or prefiguring the beatniks with his choice of groovy head gear, Doc Glendon must surely be the best dressed werewolf of all time.

The original audiences may have been nonplussed by its blend of the gothic and sci-fi, but after decades of werewolf flicks that are virtually unofficial remakes of The Wolf Man, The Werewolf of London now feels remarkably fresh and original. It may have laid the foundations for the modern fictional lycanthrope but it also has a great many elements that have not been picked up in subsequent lycanthrope tales. And there is so much that is unique in the plotting and concepts of The Werewolf of London that this film is surely as deserving of a modern remake as its better known sibling.



* - For those you intrigued by this little known good side to the werewolf, may I direct you to Paul Devereux’s Haunted Land (Piatkus Books 2001) which has a fascinating section on this subject.

THE WOLF MAN (2010)

Even a critic who is pure in heart,
And watches films at night,
May let some spoilers slip,
While penning spurious shite!

It’s been a very long road that has brought Larry Talbot back to the screen. Unlike his fellow Universal monsters Dracula and Frankenstein who have both enjoyed frequent revivals over the decades, cinema’s iconic tormented lycanthrope was not based on a literary work with its rights in the public domain. So although many of the werewolf movies that followed over the years have borrowed the character template created back in 1941, Larry himself hasn’t seen the light of the moon since 1948. Even when Universal decided to bring back their old horrors in the latter day monster rally Van Helsing (2004), the werewolvery on display wasn’t courtesy of Mr Talbot.

But in 2006, Universal announced that at long last it was slating a remake of The Wolf Man and as events unfolded it looked like the property was as cursed as Larry himself. There was a pack of directors circling around the director’s chair after the original choice, Mark Romanek left citing creative differences. Eventually Joe Johnston landed the gig, the script was rewritten and shooting finally began. However even then it was far from plain sailing – the production was delayed several times as reshoots were done, effects tweaked, the score was mucked about with several times, and veteran editor Walter Murch brought onboard put the film through its final transformation.

Now I was initially quite excited about his project, especially when they announced that the make up work was to be handled by the great Rick Baker and Benicio del Toro was in the frame to play Larry Talbot. However after the seemingly never ending merry go round of changes and alterations, I was beginning to wonder whether this flick would ever make it into the theatres at all. And when the film opened, Joe Johnston announcing that the disc release would feature a director’s cut featuring an extra seventeen minutes didn’t exactly inspire confidence. So when it finally arrived at the local fleapit, before going in I had not so much lowered my expectations as beat them to death with a silver headed cane.

Now Joe Johnston has received a fair bit of flak, a good deal even before the film’s release, for being a journeyman director. However since seeing the movie, I have to say he’s done a remarkable job in riding out all the waves and what actually appears on screen is far better than we had any right to expect, especially considering the production history. And while The Wolf Man is not going to garner any awards or go down as a classic of cinema, it is does work well within its own parameters.

And let’s be clear on what these parameters are - The Wolf Man is a monster movie pure and simple. It might be a horror film but it’s not really trying to terrify you or incubate a phobia of lycanthropes. Of course, many hardened horror heads were hoping for a proper hardcore horror; whether that would be a darker more psychological piece, or a brutalist retelling of the tale with viscera everywhere, or just a film with real terror rather than ghost train shocks. But The Wolf Man is aiming for none of these things - rather it’s out to serve up a gothic themed popcorn muncher, with everything a general audience expects of such of a creature feature – plenty of action, some gore, and a few jump scares. In short, the emphasis is on fun rather than fear.

And though some fans will be muttering about the watering down of the genre for the multiplex audience, as a creature feature The Wolf Man does succeed. Now it’s not a perfect film, and I’ll be the first to concede that it could have better, but it does entertain consistently through its running time.

So what does The Wolf Man get right? First up, it stays broadly true to the original - it retains the period setting and carrries over many of the elements present in Curt Siodmak's screenplay for the 1941 film. Stand out differences are the inclusion of the full moon's role in lycanthropy and jettisoning the original's folklore surrounding the pentagram. Also the role of the gypsies in the story is lessened - possibly this is an issue with the edit released in theatres but more likely I suspect the Maleva character smacked too much of horror cliches and possibly the Romany band of the original would appear at somewhat ethnically insensitive if not for modern audiences then certainly for Universal's lawyers.

However the changes still well within the story, as despite being cut from the whole cloth of the original, this version of the Wolf Man tale put a neat twist on the tale. And it manages to admirably to be a fairly faithful remake of the first film but bringing a new version of the story to the screen.

The look of the movie is simply fantastic. It recreates Victorian England rather nicely and in this respect it does trump the original. The decision to film in England pays off in style; for example, it would have been very easy to go the CGI route and mock up the Talbot estate but actually filming at a real stately home gives the film an authentic weight that digital trickery often lacks. Plus by extensively filming in a variety of UK locations, Johnston gets to make good use of the surrounding landscape which adds considerably to the atmosphere of Englishness. Now that might seem a small nebulous point but I do think that if they had opted to film somewhere else – and let’s be frank, England isn’t the cheapest country in the world to make a movie in – you would lose something.

While still on the look of the film, I also did sense that the designers and set dressers were aiming a little more historical accuracy than the usual Hollywood period London drowned in pea soupers and gaslights. For example, the depiction of the gypsy encampment was noticeably more down at heel and ragged rather than the standard travelling fair cliché that we usually see whenever a script calls for Romany or carnival locations.

I do have one set/location related quibble though, which is the Talbot house itself was slightly over dressed for my taste. Within the framework of the story, the hall should be somewhat overgrown, reflecting the fact that Sir John Talbot has misplaced a few of his marbles over the years, but it was also at little too close to the old screen cliché that the monster’s home must look like hell on toast. You could have scaled back the ivy choked exterior and toned down the accumulating detritus indoors and retained the same effect. Less would have been more, and the Talbots’ home would have meshed better with the rest of the onscreen world.

Anyhow, amid all this rather lush scenery, we have a fairly decent cast, and no one seems to have enrolled in the Dick Van Dyke Gor Blimey Guv’nor school of acting prior to the cameras rolling thankfully. Sir Anthony Hopkins puts in a good turn and generally chews the scenery far less than I was expecting. Emily Blunt makes for a fine Victorian lady though I did feel she was a little under used – but more on that later. And Hugo Weaving is as excellent as Inspector Fred Abberline as you’d expect him to be; yet again he shows his range in creating a fresh character with an entirely different voice and mannerisms to his previous roles and pretty much steals most of the scenes he’s in. He even looks uncannily like the real Abberline.

Of course the big issue is Benicio del Toro as Larry Talbot. Now when I first heard the casting news, although I respect del Toro immensely as an actor, I did wonder whether he could pull off playing an English gentleman – after all, accents are a tricky beast and in the past many a fine actor has struggled, and in some case fallen badly, in mastering a voice pattern from outside there their native lands. Would the new Wolf Man end up too closely emulating the original 1941 version with a blatantly non-Brit playing the son of an English lord?

Of course, I needn’t have worried – del Toro hits all the correct cadences without obviously attempting to force an English accent. And though the story does include a little detail to explain why he looks a touch less British than his father, there is a certain family resemblance to Hopkins. On paper, it shouldn’t work but when you see them on screen together you can believe they are related – of course the strength of the performances create this illusion in the main but they do have strangely similar facial features in some respects. Indeed, they are a far better match as father and son than Chaney and Rains ever were.

However on the subject of similarities, del Toro appears to be actually channelling Lon Chaney Jr. Now Benicio is a huge fan of the original Wolf Man movies and you can tell he’s studied his predecessor in depth for the role. Though his Lawrence Talbot is more brooding than Chaney, he emanates the same troubled aura of melancholy, with the torment visible in the eyes and hang dog expression. And as his wolfish alter ego, he brings a far greater physicality to the role and deeper sense of rage to the monster.

This brings us nicely to the depiction of the Wolf Man. Now obviously the effects work by Rick Baker is as every bit as good as you’d expect it to be, and he's has done an excellent job in modernising Jack Pierce’s original designs for the 21st century. But equally obviously, the transformation sequences just don’t have the wow factor of his previous work on American Werewolf in London. The trouble is we’ve all seen these kind of physical transmogrifications done to death by every man and his dog in the intervening years. However the sequences do look fantastic, with none of the glaringly obvious CGI that often blights such scenes.

Sadly though, not all the digital effects in this movie are as skilfully blended as the transformations. In the main, where the CGI doesn’t work as well is in some occasional moments of the London scenes, particularly the rooftop chase. Now in fairness, here The Wolf Man never plunges into the screamingly obvious levels of digital scene creation that marred similar rooftop sequences in The Incredible Hulk but the smoking skyline doesn’t always feel quite real enough.

However there is a truly awful bit of CGI in this flick, and it's very much the low point of the entire movie – that damned bear. Now the problem here isn’t that the ursine in question is particularly badly animated or rendered, the trouble is it doesn’t look like a real bear when we see it up close! For the screen time it has, it surely would have been cheaper to matte in footage of a real bear than create this digital porridge hunter.

Now I appreciate that real bears are quite difficult to work with (getting stuch in honey trees and trying to flog you Hofmeister) and a continuing problem for CGI effects is animating fur realistically, but this creature tossed me out of the movie so hard I felt like bloody Goldilocks. And from now on, I propose that any such cringingly bad piece of CGI should be dubbed ‘a bear’…

And if you are wondering why the bear is in there at all, I think it’s one of the many nods to the original movie. The 1941 Wolf Man was supposed to include a scene at the gypsy camp where a bitten but pre-change Larry wrestles a tame bear as part of a fair ground contest. However the real bear the studio brought in was not keen on being in show biz and after two days shooting the scene was scrapped. Maybe they were considering riffing on this lost scene and planning a fight scene with Paddington’s feral cousin and the werewolf but decided against it when they saw the CG work… In which case, we all dodged a silver bullet there.

But just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer, neither does one dodgy bruin a bad movie make. And the fluctuations in the overall quality of the special effects aren’t the movie’s real problem. The major flaw as far I’m concerned is the plotting. Now don’t get me wrong The Wolf Man bounds along at a brisk speed and is properly punctuated so you are never far away from some action or a story development. However the film seems to sacrifice a little too much drama for the sake of pace, and it is here that all the production’s tortuous development history makes itself felt.

It doesn’t really spend enough time developing the relationships in the story, hence my earlier remarks about Emily Blunt – we only get enough on screen to superficially sell the romance between Lawrence and Gwen. And similarly, in the spiky relationship with his father, I felt that there was more dramatic mileage there than was actually delivered. And in trimming down this material, presumably in the name of tempo, it effectively weakens the opening sections and more crucially the last act. The climatic battle between Lawrence and Sir John feels a little overshadowed by the London rampage as all we are left with is the action; as their relationship has been dramatically under weighted in the rest of the film, this confrontation lacks the emotional wallop it should have had. And more seriously, as the Lawrence/Gewn relationship is undercooked, we don’t get enough to establish any real pathos for the finale where Gwen must kill Lawrence to save him.

As it stands the story functions ok, but with some more flesh on its bones it would work a whole lot better. The crux of The Wolf Man story is Talbot’s struggle for humanity, and if we were to see more scenes that emphasised his emotional conflicts then the film’s narrative would work on a deeper level than the slightly hokey one it currently does.

Interestingly, in the extended cut has assembled for the disc release, Johnston has confirmed that the extra quarter of an hour mainly comprises of character driven sequences rather than extra action and gore (click here for details). All of which confirms the suspicion I had when watching the movie that there were a few scenes missing here and there, and especially in the first half. It will be interesting to see how differently the longer plays and I think we’ll see a version that sports superior performances and deeper drama, a movie that builds more evenly to its finish.

One final quibble though, and one that I doubt the longer cut will fix, is the very end of the movie where we are left wondering if Abberline is to be the next werewolf. Now although I’d be more than happy go and see Weaving as the Wolf Man, and indeed it would be great to see him in a lead role, I do have a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, we’ve just got Larry Talbot back and a great actor, Benicio del Toro in the role. So if you want a sequel, raise him up from the grave. It’s not hard, just steal the opening from Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, and let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to see what Rick Baker could do with moonlight reviving Lawrence Talbot? Come on, a desiccated corpse to werewolf transformation would be pure gold!

Secondly if they are planning to go down that route, why set the film in 1891? If you’re having Fred Abberline turn lycanthrope in a sequel, a more interesting premise would be to set this first movie BEFORE the Jack the Ripper murders.

But as I stated at the start of this review, The Wolf Man has come out pretty decent considering the production’s troubles. What we have here is an entertaining movie rather than a great film; in trading off drama for pace, it romps where it should lope. Or to put it another way, we have a comic book version of the story rather than the dark fairy tale it perhaps should have been.

However, although The Wolf Man has missed a cinematic bulls eye, it has at least hit the right target. I mean, look what happened when Universal have resurrected their famous monsters in the recent past - The Mummy series has upped stakes entirely from the horror genre and wandered onto Indiana Jones’ turf and as for Van Helsing … deary deary me, I never realised that pissing on graves counted as a homage these days.

The Wolf Man on the other hand, does respectfully tip its hat to the original in many ways – indeed for the Universal buff out there there’s a lot of nice little references to the original to spot. And neither is it as annoyingly and wilfully dumb as either of those other resurrections. Yes, it is a bit hokey but it is a fun watch. And lest we forget, many of the monster movies of years gone by, all those creature features that we all love so much, share the exactly the same kind of flaws. For all the unevenness in the story telling, it does the Wolf Man right and will no doubt win him a whole new generation of fans. Welcome back Larry!

House of Dracula

Stone me it's finally here! Bet you all thought old Jim had forgotten. No such luck matey! At long last, here's the review of the final movie in the Universal Frankenstein saga ...

It's 1945, and the curtain falls of the Universal monsters. Back for this final hurrah were most of the personel from House of Frankenstein . Erle C. Kenton was back in the director's chair, Chaney, Strange and Carradine reprised their roles as Larry Talbot, the Monster, and Dracula. The trailer even recycled the 'count the monsters' gimmick used for it's predecessor .

However this movie is a very diferent kettle of monsters. The script is far better, Kenton's direction sports a good deal more flair and Carradine - obligatory pun alert! - really gets his teeth into the role of the Lord of the Undead.

The story this time around flows nicely, focusing on Talbot and Dracula seeking a cure for their conditions from Onslow Stevens' Dr Edelmann. However the Count soon reverts to type and corrupts the good Doctor via a blood transfusion. Edelman is soon periodically transforming into a Mr Hyde style mad scientist...

Naturally there is a continuity gap, there's no explanation for Dracula's return from staking in the previous film. And as we've come to expect from these monster rallies, the plot doesn't really do all five creatures credit. To start with this film's Hunchback, Nurse Nina isn't really a monster. Aside from being quite attractive - nop seriously she is - Nina is a sympathetic character and can be definitely classed as one of the heroes in this story. Secondly, Frankenstein's monster has even less to do than in House of Frankenstein, and again most of what little screen time it has is spent on a lab table before the inevitable rampage in the film's finale.

It is a shame the Monster has so little relevence to the plot, but frankly this is somewhat forgivable as a stronger film does result. Unlike the almost anthology film structure of the previous movie, House of Dracula builds up suspense and pace steadily right up to the final climax.

On the whole the script is far better. As prevoiusly stated Carradine's Dracula really shines, portraying the Count as intelligent, sinister and a real force of evil. Dr Edlemann's character is really great, and interestingly is both hero and villain at different points during the movie. Plus his experiments, both as a good physician and evil scientist actually make sense too. Thankfully there's none of the musical brains routine that robbed sanity from Ghost of Frankenstein and Niemann's schemes here.

Performance-wise, as previously stated Carradine really delivers the goods as Dracula and Chaney is dependable as ever. However the stand out turn comes from Onslow Stevens who excels as both the goodly doctor and Hyde-style villain. His character gives the film an original twist and his stellar performance really holds the movie together.

Overall House of Dracula is a satisfying end to the series. There's some fine locations, a cracking plot and plenty of creepy images. Admittedly it never scales the heights of the earliest entries in the saga but it's marked improvement over the later entries.

At last - The House of Frankenstein

Finally it's here! Bet you all thought I'd forgotten! Well at last it's here, my little review of the 5th installment of Universal's Frankenstein saga...


Now in an episode of the marvellous Horror Etc podcast, one of the the hosts, the very genial Anthony DP Mann claimed that in his opinion Universal never made a truly bad horror film in this era. And while I wholehearted concur with this, it has to be said that House of Frankenstein is easily the weakest entry in the saga.


In the trailer for this monster rally, Universal promised audiences a whopping five monsters in one flick! Obviously raising the stakes from two to three monsters just wasn't good enough! So here we have the tale of Dr Niemann (Monster #1 - The Mad Scientist) and his quest to continue his experiments and extract revenge on those who have crossed him. Niemann, played with relish by Boris Karloff, is perhaps best described as a Frankenstein wannabe - he even emulates his hero right down to having a deformed assistant (Monster #2 - The Hunchback). And in the course of the movie, he revives not only the Frankenstein monster and the Wolf Man, but Dracula too (Monsters # 3, 4 & 5 natch).


Now that's a whole lotta monsters! Now considering the patchy pairing of Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, it's no real surprise that the script has trouble fitting all these villains into one movie. But in the main, surprisingly, they do manage it! No mean feat, when you consider the concept for the film is more a good hand in a game of Top Trumps than an actual storyline.

Admittedly the Frankenstein monster doesn't get a whole lot to do until thefilm's finale and spends most of its screen time literally lying down on the job. But though the monster doesn't do alot, it is a key element in Niemann's schemes, and so in terms of the storyline, the monster's prescence is well integrated.


The main focus of the movie, though revolves around Niemann, Larry Talbot and the Hunchback Daniel. There is a nice dynamic between the 3 characters, and a neat subplot involving romantic rivalry between Daniel and Larry for the affections of a gypsy girl. Gypsy girl? I hear you cry ... Yes, with the inclusion of a hunchback, sorry make that 'The Hunchback', rather than having Daniel as a stock mad scientist assistant in the vein of Fritz or Igor, Universal decided to go more mythic and echo the classic Quasimodo and Esmeralda relationship.


Dracula's inclusion however is less well executed. The plot device of Niemann reviving the Lord of The Vampires and coercing him into serving his revenge plot is introduced well enough, but then the action wanders away from the main story. So in effect we have a Dracula vignette inserted into the middle of the film, which does rather chop up the flow of the story.


Now, how does this monster rally fare in terms of continuity? Surprisingly fairly well. Better than Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, though in fairness, this film didn't have to content with all of one characters dialogue being cut. However there is one major howler - Dracula is revived from his staked skeleton when we all know that the Count's remains were incinerated by his daughter on a misty moor. Well, all of us who saw Dracula's Daughter do at any rate - a movie that seems to have passed the script writers by. And when Dracula is revived he now looks like John Carradine, who doesn't in the slightest resemble Lugosi. Still I suppose we could claim that this is a relation of the original Dracula (as we do for Son Of Dracula)...


But continuity snarl-ups are par for the course, particularly this late in the series, and House of Frankenstein is actually far better than either of it two immediate predecessors in this regard. However where the script really falls down is in terms of sense! Frankly Niemann's revenge plan is utterly bonkers on every level. It is revealed that when he finally captures two of his enemies, he plans to insert the brain of the Wolf Man into one, and transplant the brain of the other into the monster's body. All of which will result in one undergoing the curse of lycanthropy and the other being trapped in a patchwork body.


Now aside from the basic confusion in the script, that putting Talbot's brain in another body, will simply put Larry in a new body, this plan is still round the twist. Ok, so one of your enemies will now have the power to turn into the Wolf Man and claw you into kibble faster than you can say 'Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf'. And the other will suffer the living hell of being trapped in an inhumanly strong and virtually indestructible body. Great work Niemann - a revenge that will effectively gives your victims super powers! Genius! As Zaphod Beeblebrox would say - "Ten out of ten for style, minus several million for good thinking".


Then again Niemann is the Mad Scientist in this movie, so you could argue that as a wannabe Frankenstein he has got the wrong end of the stick and taken the 'mad' bit of his job description literally. Which would explain why his plan to play muscial brains is so totally tonto...


But enough of this filling in of clincially insane plot holes! I'll start sounding as barking as Niemann himself if I'm not careful. So onto performances. Chaney is dependable as ever as poor doomed Larry Talbot and Karloff really seems to be enjoying playing the scientist rather than the monster for once. J. Carrol Naish is also excellent as Daniel, giving the character a nice sense of pathos and playing of Karloff and Chaney very well. Carradine though seems a little unsure in his portrayal of the Count, and in fairness the script isn't doing him any favours. (However in the next movie in this series, he really - obligatory bad pun alert! - gets his teeth in to the role). Glen Strange is fine as the monster in the little he has to do, but it is pleasing to see the character being played by an actor with the correct height and build once again.


Now despite the problems in the script, this is still an entertaining movie. However when the script does work, such as the scenes playing out the love triangle between Talbot, Daniel and Illonka, the movie really hits the quality mark. Harking back to 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' was a very inspired touch. Indeed I can't help feeling that there's a truly great little movie in here trying to get out - and with another couple of drafts done on the screenplay it could have made it.

In general, the cast really try to make it work, and there still some very nice set pieces and cinematography despite the reduced budget. Yes, it is the weakest entry in the series but it's not a bad movie by any means. It's not a great movie either, but it is really good fun. Watch it with your tongue firmly in your cheek and you'll probably have a blast with this.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man

At last we get return to the realms of Frankenstein! Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man holds a special place in my heart, as it was the very first horror movie I ever saw... Previously I'd seen a fair few sci-fi flicks and monster movies, some of which contained a good dose of fear. Like many genre fans out there I'd been terrified by the Morlocks in George Pal's The Time Machine, thrilled by the mutant in This Island Earth, and utterly dazzled by the original King Kong.

Plus Doctor Who at the time (mid 70s) had been providing a weekly dose of terror with serials featuring giant maggots, body snatching spiders, creatures from the deep and all manner of ugly and villainous aliens - and if all that wasn't enough the early Tom Baker stories featured homages to The Quatermass Experiment (The Seeds of Death), Frankenstein and Donovan's Brain (Brain of Morbius), mummy movies (Pyramids of Mars), and The Phantom of the Opera (Talons of Weng Chiang). And the latter threw in the most sinister murderous ventriloquist's dummy of all time Mr Sin.

All great stuff for the budding horror fan. But I'd not yet seen a proper horror film. At that time in the UK, horror films - even the ancient Universals were only ever shown late at night and so apart from the stuf fmentioned above, the closest I'd got to seeing a pure horror movie was a couple of clips on a TV show about movie history and Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein (which was deemed suitable for an earlier viewing slot).

However in 1977 that was about to change at a rainy Cub Scout camp. In the usual range of activities, it was announced there was to be a film showing. Now we trooped into the hall expecting something from the Children's Film Foundation stable, as was usually the case in these situations. So imagine my surprise and delight when the lights dimmed and the title Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man hit the screen. Needless to say the movie went down a storm with us Cubs. Partly as this showing had the alluring whiff of contraband about it (remember this was the kind of thing that normally screened way past bedtime and years before the advent of video), but mainly because this movie is just so much fun. And for the rest of the weekend, several hundred small boys were either snarling around trees or lurching about with arms outstretched... I don't know who decided on that choice of movie, but they have my everlasting thanks!

So how does this film hold up now? Well it does exactly what it says on the tin. It's still an awful lot of fun and is hands down my favourite of the last four movies in the series. Though it has it's problems. For a start the first half which focuses on Larry Talbot is far superior to the second - it's well constructed and intriguing but when we discover the Frankenstein monster the script lapses slightly.

Watching the series in order, the first question is how on earth did the Monster end up in an ice cave beneath Castle Frankenstein when at the close of Ghost of Frankenstein he was burning up in miles away in Ludwig's manor? Considering the smooth continuity from The Wolf Man this does jar. Admittedly the studio bosses did monkey about with the film. As you may remember the previous film ended with Igor's brain being transplanted into the Monster's body and discovering he was going blind. Hence for this movie Lugosi logically got the role of the Monster, and the script originally had the monster speaking. However test audiences laughed too much at Lugosi's speechs and so Universal ordered the monster's dialogue to be snipped. So one wonders whether there was a Lugosi speech which told how the Monster came to be frozen. Considering the care Curt Siodmak pays to other aspects of the continuity, I find it hard to imagine he would omit bridging the gap in the story from the previous Frankenstein outing, especially as it was written to be Igor in the Monster's body.

No doubtedly these cuts also damage the movie's plot in other ways. For example, we have Lugosi shambling about with arms outstretched but there is no reference made to the monster being blind. But one also wonders what else was lost; I can't imagine Igor not having another evil scheme up his sleeve. One can only hope that someday the lost footage turns up, as I imagine it will produce a second half that lives up to the first.

However despite the above problems, Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man is still far superior to its predecessor or its two sequels. Creighton Chaney's impassioned performance really holds the film together and the cinematography has a truly epic gothic vision. It's packed with wonderful set pieces - the atmospheric opening with grave robbers breaking into the Talbot mausoleum, the lavish mittel-European village revels, the climatic final battle of the monsters - to name but three. It may not scale the heights set by the first three Frankenstein movies, or The Wolf Man for that matter, but it does satisfy, delivering creepy thrills and spills and manages to contruct a tale which integrates the Wolf Man and the Monster.

And finally, it must be noted that Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man is an increasingly important film in cinema history as it is the granddaddy of the the crossover film. Without it we would have no King Kong Vs Godzilla, no Freddy Vs Jason, and no Aliens Vs Predator movies... (though in the latter case that some of you out there may well be thinking that's a blessing). However with Marvel finally getting their characters to crossover on the big screen, we can be sure that movie icons will be going head to head a whole lot more in the future...

The Ghost of Frankenstein

1942 brought us The Ghost of Frankenstein, the fourth entry in the saga and a turning point for the series as a whole. It is the first film in which Boris Karloff does not play the monster, lumbering duties being taken up by Lon Chaney Jr. But the major change was this - whereas the first three films has been unashamedly 'A' list pictures, Ghost of Frankenstein was the first to be produced for as a 'B' movie, meaning a quicker production on a smaller budget.

Despite the slashed funds, Ghost of Frankenstein still features decent sets and camerawork, and Erle C Kenton's direction is competent though somewhat uninspired compared to to Whale and Lee's efforts. But where the budget begins to bite is in the script.

On the plus side, the bones of the plot are actually quite good, featuring the continuing tale of Ygor's partnership with the monster. It features strong continuity with the previous films, something that the following three films would largely jettison to their detriment. However there are some niggles here. Firstly how did the monster survive immersion in the sulphur pit which Inspector Krough states is hot enough to broil a man to the bone. Secondly why had Ludwig Frankenstein been living in a neighbouring village, when Son of Frankenstein states that the Frankensteins fled to America? And why was they second son not mentioned before? And why does Ludwig have a basement lab full of monster reviving electrical apparatus? Were these Ken Strickfadden gizmos standard issue for medical practioners at the time? One wonders if the village chiropodist has a cellar full of sparking Ken Strickfaden gear too. On the more serious side though, one wonders why on earth the monster seems to agree to having his brain removed. And furthermore why the hell does he want the little girl's brain transplanted into his bonce?

Of course it doesn't often pay to expect high degrees of sense and logic in monster movie. But these plot holes aside, the real weakness of the script is that it has a truly 'B' movie sensibility. Whereas the previous films had character-driven dynamics, Ghost of Frankenstein emphaises the monster's exploits and the ghoulish thrills of mad science, with characters being plot devices to further this rather than creating any dramatic tension.

This is most clearly highlighted in Ygor. Bela Lugosi's performance of the character doesn't slip in quality but he has a good deal less to do. Much of his dialogue serves as exposition rather than character building. And Ygor lacks a Wolf or Krough to match wits against.

Similarly Lionel Atwill's Bomar is much underused. His subplot is actually quite intriguing. Apparently he was originally Ludwig's mentor, until a surgical accident ruined his standing in the medical community and now he finds himself relegated to assisting his former pupil. Naturally he is somewhat bitter and harbours a degree of resentment to Frankenstein - something that Ygor uses to ensure that he will get his brain trnasplanted into the monster's body against Ludwig's wishes. However at the film's climax, the new Ygor/monster discovers his body and senses are failing, as Bomar as blundered again; he's overlooked that fact that there is a tissue incompatibility between Ygor and the monster.

Now on paper this appears a solid backbone to build the story around, and finishes with a neat ironic twist. However in the actual film it falls flat as the script has not developed the characters of Ygor, Bomar or Ludwig enough to give it the necessary dramatic weight. Which is a real pity as from their performance in Son of Frankenstein, Atwill and Lugosi could have really carried this off. The final twist comes across as a last minute deus ex machina to foil the Ygor/monster hybrid rather than being the satisfying conclusion of the character's interweaving stories.

Aside from the script, the film does have one other major weak link - the loss of Boris Karloff. Creighton Chaney, bless him, performs well enough but lacks the pathos Karloff imbued the monster with. Chaney's monster is alot more stiff and robotic than Karloff's, but ironically his performance has the stereotypical movements we associate with the monster today. And in fairness, the script doesn't exactly call for much other than alot of lurching about. But acting styles aside, Chaney just doesn't look right in the Pierce makeup - his monster sadly is more chubby than cadaverous.

Despite being a definite step down from the previous films, Ghost of Frankenstein is still an enjoyable watch. Though you can't help feeling there's was a better film lurking in the material that a more developed script could have delivered. In many ways, it's a bit of an oddity. Despite it's continuity it doesn't quite fit in with the first three films due to the lower brow scripting. But it also doesn't fit with the following sequels as after this continity went out the window, and this was to be the last time the monster appeared on his own. The later three films were to be 'monster rallies' where Frankenstein's creature would have to share the screen with the Wolfman and the Count...

Holmes vs Frankenstein?

After a sucessful revival of Dracula and Frankenstein in a double bill, Universal decided to it was high time to revive the monster once again. However the sequel was to be done without many of the series' stalwarts, with only Karloff returning . But could new boy Rowland V. Lee match the heights of James Whale's direction?

The first thing to note about his production is that the script was being constantly rewritten during shooting. However to Lee's credit, the finished film shows little of this behind the scenes turmoil. Certainly the the movie wanders a little in the middle section, but in fairness this is nitpicking. After all, a tendency to lose a little pace around the halfway mark is a common affliction in most movies, and when watching Son of Frankenstein you wouldn't guess that new pages of script were often turning up on set on a daily basis! And that's an impressive feat for any director. Alot of films which suffer this end up as Alan Smithee productions.

However Lee's accomplishments don't just end with making a coherent movie from a hydra-headed script. Firstly there's the fantastic casting and the performances he got from them. Bela Lugosi excels as Igor, the villainous graverobber. Lugosi often gets accused of being a terrible ham, but his portrayal of Ygor shows great depth and subtlety, and quite possibly tops his genre-defining performance of the Count. Indeed it's worth noting that due to this film, Ygor will always be the name associated with a mad doctor's deformed assistant in the popular imagination. Therefore, at the very least, Lugosi's Ygor has proved to be an iconic performance equal to his Dracula.

Equally impressive is Ygor's nemesis, Lionel Atwill's Inspector Krough. Despite having an arm ripped of by the monster in his youth, Krough is a more complex character than the usual monster-chasing hero. He tries to keep the peace between the new Baron Frankenstein and the anxious populace, rather than lead a torch and pitchfork wielding mob. While Ygor is the sinister schemer, manipulating both Frankenstein and the monster, Krough is very much his reflection, icarrying out counterpoint string pulling. He attempts to keep the villagers at peace, investigates the monster's murders and tries to discover the extent of Frankenstein's involvement. The interplay between Atwill and Rathbone is also great. Krough rightly suspects that Wolf is following in his father's footsteps but still tries to gain his confidence.

Atwill imbues Krough with a calculating intelligence and deep integrity and honour. And he achieves this with his character having one of the most bizarre character traits in movie history. Krough's missing arm has been replaced by a wooden one, which he manipulates to give himself the use of two arms. Now this could have easily been used to comedic effect (as Mel Brooks did in 'Young Frankenstein'), but Atwill and Lee carefully ensure that never happens. Whenever Krough is moving his replacement arm, it underlines not just the threat of the monster but the strength and virtues of Krough. Here is a man who by rights should be first in line to lead the mob against Wolf Frankenstein as soon as he alits from the train, yet he does the opposite and welcomes the new Frankensteins and tries to avert the villagers' hostility. Moreover the way he uses his arm suggests a man who in the face of adversity as chosen to calmly carry on regardless; his affliction may have precluded him from fulfilling his ambition to become a solider but he will be the best, most committed police inspector possible.

The last newcomer to look at is Basil Rathbone. Most famous for his performances as Sherlock Holmes (the first two films in the long running series would appear in the same year as Son of Frankenstein), he proves he can create a Frankenstein distinct from Colin Clive yet just as memorable. As Wolf Frankenstein, he portrays a man who wishes to escape his father's monster-making shadow but ultimately catches his father's scientific fervour when he discovers the survival of the monster. Indeed as the film progresses, he gradually begins to develop nervous tics that cleverly echo Clive's performance. He convincingly depicts a man who is not only trapped between the pull of Ygor and Krough, but also between his own family life and his father's legacy. All in all, Rathbone's Wolf Frankenstein proves to be a more complex and believeably character than Clive's Henry.

Needless to say, Karloff is still excellent as the monster. After the events of the last film, the monster is once more mute and seems a little less intelligent now - presumably either due to damaged suffered or the 'sickness' he is suffering from when Ygor first reveals him. Although the monster is a good deal more evil under the bidding of Ygor, there is still pathos and depth in Karloff's performance. The scene where the revived monster confronts Wolf is particularly memorable.

In addition to these three great turns, Lee has other aces up his sleeve. This film boasts beautiful cinematography and fantastic sets. Now the Frankenstein home has become an Expressionist labyrinth of jutting angles and twisted architecture, with Lee's camera work and light making the most of harsh lines and deep shadows. The film has great visual flair, creating a rich and atmospheric world for the drama to unfold in. Jeremy Dyson in Bright Darkness notes that many subsequent directors have borrowed shots from this film - most strikingly Orson Welles' Citizen Kane; as Dyson points out Welles borrows Lee's opening sequence practically shot for shot.

Son of Frankenstein is a fine film. It not only delivers the expected chills but also continues to intelligently explore wider themes. Lee wisely focuses the action through the character's relationships rather mere monster mayhem, and in doing so creates genuine drama and tension. It is a worthy sucessor to the Whale films and in my view comfortably equals them, forming a very solid trilogy of Frankenstein movies. It's actually my favourite of the Universal sequels - though it's a very close call between Son of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein.

However this was to be the last outing for Karloff as the monster, and the following films of the series would not maintain the high standards of the first three...

Here Comes The Bride!

As far back as 1933 Universal were looking to develop a sequel to Frankenstein. Several scripts were produced over the next 2 years which ranged from a scifi-style tale of Frankenstein developing a death ray to a bizarre saga with Henry and Elizabeth running away to join the circus and posing as puppeteers. However none of these found favor with the studio heads or James Whale who they were keen to get back for directing duties.

However despite the lack of a decent treatment for the proposed film, then titled 'The Return of Frankenstein', Universal managed to secure Whale's services. His first action was to junk all the previously developed concepts and comission John L. Balderston to dream up a completely new plot...

Bearing in mind our conclusions on the original, it is somewhat ironic that the fresh finished script created by Balderston and William Hurlburt (and no doubt polished by Whale himself) actually draws more heavily from Shelley's original work. We now get a monster who speaks (though admittedly not as verbose as in the book); scenes detailing his education and of course the whole plot of the monster blackmailing Frankenstein into creating a mate for him. It even flags up it's credentials with a nifty prologue featuring Lord Bryon and Shelley asking Mary about the monster's fate. Naturally these elements are more reworked than accurately recreated but we still have a film that is nearer to the novel than the original.

However the script's great strength is that it is a smooth continuation of the first film. This is no lazy rehash of the first outing, it picks up directly from the close of Frankenstein and then carries on with logical progressing both the story and it's themes. Actually this is so deftly done, one who think that a second film had been planned alongside the original. Furthermore with adding more of Shelley's elements it feels like the second half novel filtered onto the screen. And if you consider the movies as two halves of one film, the result would be arguably the closest adaption of the novel ever filmed.

Of course there are a few niggles with sitting down and watching both films back to back. Firstly Elizabeth is recast. Valerie Hobson replaces Mae Clark - but in all fairness she gives a far better performance. Secondly the Frankenstein home is now gloomy and gothic than pleasantly summery as in the first film.

Finally though, the third niggle is the extra added humour. Don't panic, Bride of Frankenstein doesn't go all out into out and out horror comedy territory (it would be a good few more years before this happens at the hands of Abbott & Costello). In the main it's a case of the black humour present in the 1931 film has been polished and sharpened. Ernest Thesiger's arch Doctor Pretorius has a great many witty lines but none which undercut his villainy or the atmosphere of horror.

However, in all fairness there are two scenes where the comedy arguably oversteps this mark. One is the scene where Pretorius unveils his creations, who turn out to be little hommunculi in belljars which have been dressed in satirical costumes. But what tips this scene is not so much the antics of the King who escapes from his jar, but the high pitched squeaking voices of Pretorius' creations - it's hard for the modern viewer to watch this without being reminded of Alvin & the chipmonks/the Smurfs/Pinky & Perky/insert suitable helium-voiced pop culture reference.

Similiarly it's hard not to keep a straight face when the monster starts drinking and puffing on cigars with the blind hermit. When I rewatched this, all Karloff's shouts of 'Smoke!" and "Drink good!" made me wonder if this performance was an inspiration for Father Jack in Father Ted.
And there's further comedy in that due to the lighting the cigar the monster happily smokes looks very like a monstrous reefer! (Presumably this is unintentional, but with Whale's flamboyant private life one never knows).

However neither of these broadly humorous vignettes harm either the atmosphere or the film overall in my opinion. Pretorius' hommunculi ultimately underline the madness and perversity of his character, and the monster enjoying the hospitality of the blind hermit, though amusing are at the same time quite touching. They also form a key point in the plot in that the subsequent shattering of this idyll propells the monster into further villainy.

Niggles aside and whether you watch it as a sequel or a 'Part 2', this film is a classic in every sense equal to it's predecessor. Clive and Karloff turn in accomplished performances, Dwight Frye returns as an unscrupulous graverobber from the Burke & Hare school, and Ernest Thesiger excels as the corrupting Pretorius. Whale's actually manages to out-direct himself, creating a film filled with iconic shots and resonant images. He also manages to subvert the audiences' expectations at every turn - the crowning example of this being the actual Bride herself.

After her animation in a scene that tops the original in both tension and Ken Strickfaden-created sparking apparatus, the reveal of the monster's mate was a surprise in itself. Rather slowly peeling away the bandages, Whale opts for a dissolve to the Bride dressed in suitably nuptial robes and after some hair dressing. Instead of a hulking female Karloff clone, we have a rather glamourous if not attractive girl.

Now when I first saw the Bride in a still reproduced in Alan Frank's fabled Horror Movies back in my much younger days, I must admit I was somewhat disappointed that Jack Pierce hadn't delivered a squared headed, scar festooned harpy. But it was a very different matter when I got to see the movie. The first impression still jars the expectations, but then she moves. Firstly Elsa Lanchester gives the Bride a sinister doll-like body language, moving in almost clockwork actions which given the character a truly uncanny nature. But the real kicker is when she turns and we see the intersecting stitching where they attached her head. Whereas Karloff's sutures had a patchwork feel, the Bride's scars have horrible fresh out of car wreck surgery feel to them.

Pierce apparently spent a great deal of time on creating the stitching, much to Elsa Lanchester's displeasure. However the time and care did really pay off; the Bride's perfect porcelain complexion is truly corrupted by the bristling threads. The design in itself is inspired - the stitching is all the more horrid for the way the two lines form a 'V' shape, hinting at a very messy assembly job and leaving the audience wondering how well Henry and Pretorius have put her together - that gown she's wearing probably has long sleeves and hemline for a very good reasons...

Bride of Frankenstein is often claimed to be that rarest of beasts - a sequel that actually improves upon the original. Whether you concur with this, I suspect will largely come to down to how you react to the touchs of humour, black or otherwise. Certainly it at least equals the first film and deserves it's status as a classic in it's own right.

Bride of Frankenstein definitely can be held up as the perfect example of how to contruct as a sequel. Of course this begs the question, would Universal follow it's lead when they came to Son of Frankenstein?

It's alive! IT'S ALIVE!

Yes it's been a while but we're back! Back I tell you! And armed to the teeth with thoughts on the Universal Frankenstein saga! Multiple posts imminent!

But enough of the Colin Clive ranting ... let us consider the first entry in the cycle - James Whale's Frankenstein (1931). What can one say about this movie? It's not just a horror classic but it's also a genuine giant in the annals of cinema greats. Whale's direction is accomplished, the lighting and sets truly evocative, Jack Pierce's astonishing conception of the creature, and a trio of stellar performances from Karloff, Clive, and Frye.

It's a historic film and still packs a punch today. So taking a glowing review as read, let's move on the more intriguing matter of the film's influence. Something both Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula have in common is that neither has been terribly faithfully adapted for the screen. However the reason for this comes from differing causes.

In Dracula adaptions, subplots are lost and characters enjoy a wide variety of role swaps and name changes but the essence of the novel is there. And though the Count usually differs from his appearance in the novel, particularly his rejuvenation throughout the tale, a screen Dracula can be relied upon to deliver whole lines from the book and and behave in the much the same manner as his literary antecedent.

However Frankenstein adaptions are a markedly different kettle of corpses. Very little of the novel remains bar the very bones of the plot. It's often quite a surprise for the reader to find how wildly different the book is. The major shock is the positively garrulous monster who is given to philosophical debating and could no doubt hold his own on University Challege. Other surprises include the vagueness of the creation, the monster learning English from Paradise Lost, and the fact that the whole business of the bride wasn't something dreamed up by sequel-hungry movie men.

What becomes very apparent is that screen Frankensteins are not really adaptions of this book - rather they are remakes of Universal's 1931 film. Hammer's Curse of Frankenstein took it's lead from the Universal film and but for threats of legal action would have featured a monster which looked like Jack Pierce's vision. Frankenstein - The True Story does borrow more elements from the book than most but largely does so within a Whale template. And 1992's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (as mendaciously titled as Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula) was more Cuddly Ken's Remix Of Jimmy Whale's Frankenstein Flicks.

Nearly all the elements we associate with the Frankenstein story - lightning, brain transplants, hunchback assistant, mute lumbering monster, scars, bolts through neck - originate from Whale's movie rather Shelley's text. (The only major exception is the monster's trademark arms outstretched lurching - this doesn't begin until 1942's Ghost of Frankenstein which we'll get to later).

That's how iconic this film really is - it has supplanted the book as the 'real' version of the tale in pop culture. A rare feat indeed. And that's somehow fitting too - as people are still wont to think that 'Frankenstein' is the name of the monster, this is some what mirrored by the fact that when we think of the mad doctor and his creature, we're thinking of the version made by Whale not Shelley.