Rounding out the quartet of Universal’s Invisible Man movies throughout the 1940s, The Invisible Man’s Revenge was a return to ‘form’-ula…in a good way. Also returning to the series was Jon Hall, but he would not be reprising the role of Frank Griffin Jr. Instead he would be playing Frank’s twin brother Robert Griffin, a man who escapes from a mental institution that he was incarcerated in after killing two orderlies. Talk about polar opposites and proof of the flexibility to Hall’s work as an actor, although oddly Robert has no knowledge of the invisibility formula of his brother or grandfather for that matter.
Once he is free, Robert seeks vengeance on the Herrick family who found their fortune from diamond fields that he helped to discover. The Herrick family propose a share in the estate as a means to appease Robert, but he pushes things further, demanding to marry their daughter, Julie. Their response? Drug him and get him out of their way. This only angers Robert further and he plots his revenge. In steps Dr. Peter Drury (John Carradine) who happens to be working on the formula for invisibility and with it, Robert’s key to claiming what he believes is owed to him.
The plotline is a little more convoluted than previous instalments and while it does some time before the cloak and dagger of invisibility lays the scene, the direction and delivery are more impactful due to the care and dedication devoted to character development. Robert Griffin’s descent into madness and retribution is amplified by the back story delivered and Jon Hall’s depiction. Likewise the supporting cast are on point, notably from Carradine and Gale Sondergaard as a cold-hearted Lady Irene Herrick. Furthermore, the despair of Griffin’s fear of Brutus the dog, places a nice conclusion to the tale. We are what we fear and if we place emphasis on those fears it will ultimately be our ruin.
The Invisible Man’s Revenge would mark the final time that the tale would be told with a dark edge with the next appearance coming in the Abbott and Costello movies. It would be nearly 75 years before Universal would look into the black heart of the Griffin family with The Invisible Man starring Elizabeth Moss.
In 1940 Universal Pictures bookended the calendar year starting with The Invisible Man Returns and then ending with The Invisible Woman. While the former took on the tone of a crime thriller, the latter took the series in an entirely different direction, comedy. This would also be an indication of Universal Classic Monsters future, leaning away from the macabre and into humour.
With The Invisible Woman it is indicative of its time when it comes to the bawdy comedy at hand with a little bit of screwball rom com in the mix ala Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday, also released in the same year. Here the two leads that are at odds with one another are wealthy lawyer Richard Russell (John Howard) and Kitty Carroll (Virginia Bruce), a feisty, smart and determined department store model. When we meet Kitty, she gets fired from her job for basically speaking her mind and with the promise of money learns of a wild scheme by local scientist, Professor Gibbs (an ageing and always excellent, John Barrymore) who claims that he has invented an invisibility device. Gibbs in need of a guinea pig gets one in Kitty, who is surprised to see that the mad professor’s invention actually works and what’s more, she can turn it to her advantage and seek revenge on her misogynistic former boss.
Before long, we’re headlong into a crime caper with a mob boss, Blackie Cole (Oscar Homolka) seeking to use the invisibility device for his own gain. Kitty must use her guile and new-found abilities to stop Cole in his devious plans.
The Prognosis:
The Invisible Woman is definitely a film for its time and even though some of its subject still resonates today, the style and mode of its delivery may be stifling for some. I for one welcome this old-school, nostalgic road trip that the 40s delivered to the silver screen enjoying it all the way and for a third instalment, I personally connected with this one more than The Invisible Man Returns. It would be interesting to see how it would have been handled as a dark comedy. At the time of writing, Elizabeth Banks is set to direct a new version of The Invisible Woman and being a veteran of the comedy and horror scene, it will be interesting to see if she plans to marry these two genres for a modern audience and continue the trend set by Whannell… and it does bode the question, Will we see the return of Elizabeth Moss as Cecilia Kass?
Before Leigh Whannel and the Blumhouse team reinvented and reinvigorated the Invisible Man franchise for the modern generation with their 2020 adaptation, I would have argued that no one could have stepped into Claude Rains shoes as the doomed scientist, Dr. Jack Griffin. In Fact he would reprise the role once more with American comedians Bud Abbot and Lou Costello in Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man further associating himself with the iconic character. Rains became synonymous with the Universal horror franchise with his dignified gentlemanly manner which also saw him in The Wolf Man movie and The Phantom of the Opera. HG Wells’ novel would inspire 7 feature films under the Universal umbrella, none could match the original film however, but something must have stirred the creative flow to keep the infamous production company revisiting the story.
There would be a seven year gap between the original 1933 release and a sequel, so perhaps the time lapse was too big a call for it to truly lift off from its predecessor but for me The Invisible Man Returns never quite lands the mark. This view may have raised eyebrows from some, particularly as the film boasts the magnificent Vincent Price as its lead, whose physical presence is only seen for about a minute of screen time. The rest of the movie, the renaissance man is either wrapped up in bandages or providing his sultry tones to the piece. As much as Price adds much needed gravitas to the narrative, it never encapsulates the viewer beyond the tale of redemption. As such there is no real audience connection to the characters and their one-dimensional storyline, that essentially sees Price as Geoffrey Radcliffe, a man accused of murder and sentenced to death for a crime that he didn’t commit. In steps Dr Jack Griffin’s brother, Frank, with the invisible formula and gives it to Radcliffe so that he can escape and prove his innocence. Quite why Frank does this is neither mentioned, nor followed up again. The rest of the movie plays out as a crime thriller, where Radcliffe tries to uncover who the real murderer was.
The Prognosis:
Not a patch on the original, which personally is because it steers away from the science and the side effects that ensue from substance abuse. It’s only saving grace is the presence of Vincent Price, even if it is merely in voice alone.
We’ve barely a decade of horror under their Universal belts, the powerhouse production company was struggling once more to pull in the numbers at the box office. So it’s with some sense of irony that the movies that started it all in Dracula and Frankenstein would be screened as a double feature and reignite the craze all over again. The stunt would be so successful that Universal Pictures would look to producing another instalment of their beloved monster franchise with Son of Frankenstein, in what would be the third of the series.
In Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, Universal had created two classic features, thanks to the direction of James Whale, where some have argued that the latter outweighed its predecessor. Whatever your views on the matter, it would be a touch act to follow and into the directors shoes steps Rowland V. Lee (The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers) to try and accomplish this task.
The result is one that is worthy of the
Frankenstein name, despite it bordering on silliness and camp on occasion. (A
sign of the direction that Universal would fall into down the track.)
With grand plans to shoot the film in
colour using Technicolor only to be disbanded due to artistic and budgetary
reasons, Son of Frankenstein would be
presented to the audience in black and white and reunite the horror icons, Bela
Lugosi and Boris Karloff. In this instance, the latter donning the Monster mask
for the last time in a feature film. The two would once again prove to be a
winning formula with Lugosi playing the deformed Ygor and practically stealing
the show with his performance. In an interesting turn of events, it is Ygor who
is the dominant presence and has The Monster at his beckoning call, as he
commands the creature to kill those that have proved him ill in the past.
Leading the cast as the son of Frankenstein
is Basil Rathbone (The Adventures of
Robin Hood) who cuts a fine figure of a man trying to right his fathers’
wrongs and changing the perceived conception of his family name. It would have
been interesting had Peter Lorre had played the role as he had been cast, but
had to withdraw due to illness. It’s a shame because I’m a huge fan of Lorre
and would loved to see him cast against Lugosi and Karloff, but as I said,
Rathbone more than proves his worth.
A worthy nod should also be assigned
towards Lionel Atwill (Mark of the
Vampire) as Inspector Krogh, a character whose past encounter saw his arm
torn off his limb as a child when he came into contact with The Monster. It’s a
stoic performance and Atwill shines in an already crowded cast of
personalities.
The
Diagnosis:
It’s a fitting end to this chapter in the
Universal Horror history. Son of Frankenstein manages to
harness all the right ingredients to make it a worthy companion to its predecessors,
whilst falling on the right side of drama and terror for its time.
Lugosi and Karloff are in their element and would ride out on a high. Around the corner a new king to the throne would lay in wait in Lon Chaney Jr… but that’s another tale.
The first sequel to the Universal Dracula franchise would be released just five years after its predecessor.
In the last outing we saw the demise of the titular character at the hands of Professor Van Helsing, (played once again by Edward Van Sloan, and the only returning character to the franchise) who interestingly enough is on trial for the murder of the Count.
That in itself is something I’ve often pondered about. In a world where vampires and werewolves are the stuff of legend, if they were to exist, how would one prove it after they’ve been through such an ordeal and essentially disposed of the evidence?
Anyway, I digress.
Dracula’s Daughter is not only a sequel, but the start of a trend for Universal in order to keep their booming business going when your lead villain has been dispatched – by introducing an offspring.
We would see this repeated again with the likes of Son of Dracula and Son of Frankenstein.
In this instance the Dracula bloodline flows down to his daughter, Countess Marya Zaleska, with a suitably melodramatic performance from Gloria Holden (The Life of Emile Zola).
Her portrayal of the female vampire with a craving to be human (an act that she hopes will come true with the destruction of her father’s body) served as an inspiration to Anne Rice’s Queen of the Damned.
The notion of a vampire’s desire to be human has often been looked at in films and novels throughout the years, but as far as I know, this is the first instance of it on the silver screen.
When Countess Zaleska burns the body of Dracula, with the help of her manservant, Sandor, she discovers that the curse has not been broken, so resorts to an alternate method of psychiatry instead.
In steps Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger, Saboteur) who may just have the answer she needs. Garth entices her to confront her demons head on, but her desire for blood proves too strong and she attacks a girl named Lili.
Broken and lost, the Countess feels her only option is to remain a vampire, but decides that Dr. Garth would prove a suitable companion in the after life.
So she resorts to kidnapping his true love, Janet (Marguerite Churchill, The Big Trail) and luring him back with her to Transylvania.
Dr Garth is willing to give up his life for the sake of Janet’s freedom, and all seems doomed for the Doctor, when the manservant Sandor puts a halt on the proceedings and kills the Countess in a jealous rage with an arrow through her heart.
Before he is able to exact his fury further, he too is brought down, when he is shot by a policeman.
~
Critics have been somewhat split in their reviews of Dracula’s Daughter, some citing its lush cinematography and praising both Director Lambert Hillyer’s work and the performance from Holden. Others say that it pails in comparison to Dracula.
I for one, found it strangely mesmerising and almost hypnotic with some of its lesbian overtones and this is in part down to Holden’s captivating presence on screen.
And like other critics, I too noticed a similarity to Sunset Boulevard in its themes, a film that I’m a great lover of and perhaps why I find myself drawn to this movie, despite it not carrying the same weight as Dracula.
I applaud its effort to push the story into a whole new direction and to offer some alternative narrative to the tried and tested monster storyline.
For this alone, I believe that Dracula’s Daughter its place alongside the movies that made Universal pictures a force to be reckoned with, and its perhaps a shame that it has been lost in the shadows of time due to the overwhelming impact that both Dracula and Frankenstein had on the industry.
THE BORIS KARLOFF / Bela Lugosi horror express kept on trucking along for Universal Pictures, but this was definitely Karloff’s showpiece and this lesser known film from the iconic duo probably deserves more recognition than it currently holds.
Karloff plays the eccentric scientist, Dr Janos Rukh, a man with a wild belief that he can use a telescope to reach out to the Andromeda Galaxy and use images of light to capture Earth’s past as seen from space.
Scoffed at by his colleagues, it is only when he is able to present his findings to Dr Benet (Lugosi) and Dr Stevens (Walter Kingsford) and is able to capture when a meteor had crashed into the Earth, that his skeptics sit up and take notice.
An expedition is planned where Rukh is charged with finding the fallen meteor.
When Rukh finds the meteor, he is unwittingly exposed to the radiation, Radium X, which effectively makes him glow in the dark with a fatal touch with skin to skin contact.
He is aided temporarily by Benet who discovers an antidote that can keep the radioactive poison at bay, but it’s not long before it starts to eat away at his mind and Rukh goes on a killer rampage fuelled with jealousy.
By this time, Rukh’s estranged wife has fallen in love with Ronald Drake, the nephew of Dr Stevens.
At first, Rukh reluctantly let’s her go, but this soon turns to hatred and moulds into his vicious plan to rid the world of those responsible (or so he believes) for his downfall.
Rukh succeeds in killing the Stevens’s and then ventures to off the remaining few.
As the film proceeds, it feels certain that the only person who can stop him is Benet, but even he is thwarted in a surprise move considering the casting of Lugosi attached to this character and perhaps more could have been done to play with this encounter.
Instead, it comes down to Rukh’s mother, (who is magnificently played by Violet Kemble Cooper)
to intervene and destroy the antidote, thus rendering Rukh to succumb to the radiation and go out in a blaze.
It’s a painful story, which treads a similar path to The Invisible Man, but in this instance there is more sympathy laid out to the central character, which is a testament to Karloff’s handling of such a role.
Special mention should go to Kemble Cooper, who almost steals the show with every scene that’s she’s in, deftly displaying a balance of eeriness with her psychic ability and blindness combined with the motherly love and protectiveness that she bestows upon Rukh.
Not a lot has been written about this movie and from what I have read, they err on the side of negativity, but I feel that there’s enough of a plot and structure to this movie that it warrants further scrutiny.
I found it a lot more engaging than Karloff and Lugosi’s previous outings and that The Invisible Ray could potentially be a forgotten classic as a result.
IT SEEMS ALMOST criminal that this movie has been somewhat forgotten albeit from the hardcore cinephile.
Werewolf of London will forever be cemented in history as the first mainstream Hollywood feature to centre on lycanthropy and as such contains all the ingredients that would inspire more well-known horror films down the track, chief among these would be An American Werewolf In London.
The film centres on Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), a wealthy English botanist who ventures into Tibet in search of the rare mariphasa plant.
Whilst on his expedition, Glendon is attacked by a werewolf but lives to tell the tale, but must carry the curse inflicted upon him.
Glendon’s quest was not a complete failure as he was able to obtain a sample of the mariphasa plant and as luck would have it contains the antidote (albeit a temporary one) to the traits of lycanthropy.
Upon his return to London, Glendon meets a fellow botanist, Dr Yogami, with a peculiar background, and just do happens to also be a werewolf.
A conflict arises between the two of them, particularly as Glendon learns that Yogami was the same werewolf that bit him in Tibet.
As his condition escalates, Glendon ventures transformed into the streets of London raising havoc and carnage and attacking and killing people along the way.
Glendon’s plight increases further when Yogami steals the plant sample for himself.
The rage boils over and an almighty clash arises, resulting in Glendon overpowering his foe.
Now succumbed to the curse, Glendon is drawn to his one true love, Lisa (Valerie Hobson) and is finally ploughed down when he is shot and killed in his attempt to murder her.
His dying words are ones of gratitude, as he transforms back to his former self, a tragic tale, which would be conveyed to its cinema going audience and many werewolf tales to come.
Hull’s performance is impeccably sound as Wilfred Glendon and captures both his profession and eventual transformation with great believability.
In fact, one could go on to argue that it is because of his performance and believability grounds this movie into reality and harnesses his despair even further.
Credit must also go to Jack Pierce, the man responsible for Boris Karloff’s make-up as The Monster in Frankenstein, and would produce the make-up here too, although a minimal version from what he had intended.
According to accounts from Hull’s family, he had insisted on pairing back effects so that his face could be more visible and recognisable.
Despite Pierce’s disapproval, Hull would succeed in getting what he wanted with the support of studio head, Carl Laemmle.
Pierce would however get to flex his creativity once more, six years later on Lon Chaney Jr in The Wolf Man, but event that didn’t go down too well and Pierce fast got a reputation that was unlikeable among his peers.
Despite all this, director Stuart Walker was able to steer the ship and deliver a solid movie as a result, which can feel a little dated by modern standards.
Classic horror enthusiasts may enjoy the trip back to where it all began, but it is tame compared to the films being generated today.
AT FIRST WHEN Universal first posed the concept of a shared Universe, now known as the Dark Universe, in order to release a string of movies that would link all their classic monsters together, I wanted to say that it was a bold approach, but it’s not exactly new.
As a fellow horror enthusiast pointed out on a social thread, Universal were the originators of the crossover worlds with the likes of House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula.
They were though, wanting to relaunch this product into a modern world for a contemporary audience, but there are a few things that prove as an obstacle to completing their vision.
And with these obstacles, Universal find themselves navigating a minefield of troubles which leads the picture to snag on every component along the way and unravel before our very eyes.
So let’s take a look at these obstacles, starting with the elephant in the room, otherwise known as…
Tom Cruise
I’ve been reading a lot about this in the past few days and something that strikes me a little is that people are very quick to point their fingers at Mr. Cruise, citing too much involvement and interference on his part.
But here’s the thing, whether or not this is true, the buck has to stop with Universal and their director.
They decided to cast Cruise in this vehicle and with that you have to expect him to bring some weight and opinion to the piece.
He is known for getting hands on with every project that he takes on, including all the stunts that he performs himself.
So why so surprised when this turns into a Tom Cruise project?
Director Alex Kurtzman may have handled big picture projects as a writer, but prior to The Mummy, he has handled only one other feature at the helm, People Like Us.
So was this a case that veteran actor, Cruise took advantage of this and began to steer said film instead?
Perhaps more questionable is that the script itself is so disjointed and incoherent that you wonder how someone like Kurtzman, (who also wrote this movie) with the vast amount of writing credits to his name managed to make such a botch job of it.
Which comes to the second point.
Lack of character.
Sure enough we are presented with a back story to Princess Ahmanet, but at no stage do we engage with her or identify with her plight.
This basically means that her level of menace is weakened and the fear element is lost – the anchor of the PG-13 rating on it and like the Mummy, the film spends most of the time restrained and unable to break free.
By the time that she does, it’s all too little too late.
I really had high hopes for the female Mummy component and seriously wanted her to kick arse, but when it did happen, it was fleeting and reduced to a whimper.
The supposed transformation of Russell Crowe
So restricted were the creative team behind The Mummy that even Russell Crowe was reduced to a feeble example of Mr Hyde.
On paper, this casting sounded perfect as we have seen portray some notably dark characters on screen before.
Instead we’re present with a gruff version of himself with yellowy eyes.
Sure, I get that they may have wanted to go with a more subtle approach, but why do this if the whole point is to let the monsters loose?
Zombie Vail
“You can be my wing-zombie anytime.”
While it was good to see Nick Morton (Cruise) spa with his buddy Vail at the beginning of the movie, which highlighted his recklessness, and I know I might be sounding fickle here, but it kind of got my goat, when they started riffing off An American Werewolf In London and have Vail come back as a zombie-buddy.
Even more so in the films climax, when they walk off into the sunset, ready for their next adventure.
The question is, will there another adventure?
Going off the poor box office receipts, you’d be forgiven to think that Universal would scrap their plans, but my overall feeling is that they’ll give it another push to win over their audience, which means there would be a lot riding on their next feature Bride of Frankenstein in order for them to see any payoff.
If the dominoes are now set in place for the crossover stories to take hold, then maybe, just maybe the producers will be free to flex their writing muscles and let the narrative go into some bold, new territory.
Ironically for their Dark universe to truly see any reward, Universal need to consider living up to the brand they’ve living by and take it darker.
As such, The Mummy was a mess that was placed too far into the light feel-good category for it to have the impact that horror fans were craving for.
BACK IN 1999, Universal looked to resurrect The Mummy franchise with a fresh, new approach.
The last time the bandaged fiend had graced the screens for the picture company, was in 1955 accompanied by comedy icons Abbott and Costello.
Apparently the original premise for this remake had British horror/filmmaker Clive Barker at the helm with the offering of a much darker route that was sexually charged and filled with mysticism.
One can only wonder at the concept of Imhotep taking on the Hell Priest, Pinhead.
As it was, Universal decided on a different approach when hiring Stephen Sommers and for the next 10 years, a second wave of Mummy movies was formed.
THE MUMMY (1999)
Prior to stepping on board to write and direct the feature, Sommers had four movies under his belt with Catch Me If You Can, The Adventures of Huck Finn, The Jungle Book, and Deep Rising.
So enough charge to take the lead in a bold, new direction, one that was in complete contrast to Barker’s vision, dialing down the horror and injecting more action, special fx, and comedy.
The result saw an Indiana Jones style romp through Egypt, as the rogue-ish Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser), (who accidentally discovers the city of the dead, where the High Priest, Imhotep rests) teams up with the bookish Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) and her bumbling buffoon of a brother, aptly played by John Hannah.
The trio head back to the city, despite being warned by an Egyptian warrior, Ardeth Bey not to intervene, to discover the Book of the Living.
As they discover the statue of Anubis, deep within the tomb, they also encounter the remains of Imhotep.
Meanwhile, their counterparts, a group of Americans led by the cowardly Beni discover the Book of the Dead among some jars, which carry the preserved organs o Anch-su-Namun, mistress of Pharaoh Seti I, and lover to the afore-mentioned Imhotep.
When Evelyn reads a page from the Book of the Dead, she unwittingly awakens the High Priest, who casts the 10 plagues back to Egypt.
One by one, the Americans are dispatched with great fashion, heightening the scare partially through darkened alleys, and all-out assault on the victims.
It is down to our trio of archaeologists to put an end to Imhotep’s reign of terror and entomb him once more.
It may be nearly twenty years on since it’s release now, but I think that it’s fair to say that The Mummy still stands the test of time, partly due to the great mix of comedy and action on display, plus the chemistry between Fraser and Weisz on screen is enjoyable to watch.
Credit should also be cast towards Arnold Vosloo, who portrays Imhotep with enough menace to make it the fear placed on our protagonists seem genuine and his performance has come close in signature to his predecessor Boris Karloff some 67 years prior.
The Mummy proved to be a perfect mix to entertain and generated a generous draw at the box office, which could only mean one thing. A sequel would be a certainty.
THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)
The inevitably would occur a couple of years later and would see the return of O’Connell, Evelyn, (now married), Jonathan, Ardeth Bey and as the title suggests, the return of Imhotep.
The original players would come back to resurrect their roles and to ignite that much-loved chemistry once more for the silver screen.
Joining them in this movie is Alex O’Connell, the son of Rick and Evie, and the instigator of Imhotep’s rise from the grave.
With Alex’s life on the line, our intrepid heroes must try to save him within seven days, thus providing a tension of sorts to the mix.
Added to this is the unerring threat of Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson as The Scorpion King, who vowed to give Anubis his soul for the power to defeat his enemies. Here is a hint of an inevitable showdown with two foes on the horizon.
Along the way, Evelyn is captured by the reincarnated Anck-su-namun, who is eventually released but not without discovering that she lived a previous life as the Princess Neferiti. Go figure – let’s just crowbar that subplot in there.
There’s more drama in the mix as Alex is kidnapped too, then Evelyn is killed, only to be resurrected when Jonathon and Alex recite from the Book of the Dead.
The final showdown sees our heroes triumph over evil, of course, and riding off into the sunset, but the paying audience couldn’t help but feel slightly cheated by the special fx overriding care towards the character and plot, and because of this, some of the magic wasn’t carried across from its predecessor.
That didn’t deter our filmmakers from a third installment though, but first…
A VAN HELSING HIATUS – VAN HELSING (2004)
The last attempt that Universal took to amalgamate their Monsters universe would arrive in 2004, and would once again see Sommers at the helm to deliver the success received at box office with his previous two outings.
However, any harsh criticism that The Mummy Returns received seemed to have fallen on deaf ears as the same mistakes were repeated and furthermore, delved deeper still in the dire and diabolical.
Sommers goes hell-bent to deliver a CGI in fuelled overload with little or no care factor for the characters involved.
The result is that despite the desire to thrust the ”Monsters’ front and centre in an adrenaline, action-packed thrill-ride, there is no audience connection to said creatures and the desired impact leaves us wanting.
The usual ticks are there, with the distraught Frankenstein’s at the loss of his father who not only carries more compassion than the entire cast combined, but also the key to life – one that the melodramatic Dracula (and all-out bad-guy in this movie) played by Richard Roxburgh.
In fact the whole movie screams at high volume and extreme velocity that there’s no time to stop and think, but this is perhaps the director’s ruse all along – a vein attempt to hide that there is no substance or heart to the film at all.
As much as they try to inject some humour into the mix, with David Wenham’s friar, Carl, it’s not enough to elevate Van Helsing.
It’s saving grace if we can call it that comes in the form of the film’s leads, Kate Beckinsale as Anna Velarious (hot off the back of Underworld) delivering attitude aplenty, and Hugh Jackman as the titular character, dialling his Wolverine shtick up to 10.
Ultimately though, Van Helsing was a doomed experiment that falls short of Universal expectations and with it, the audience satisfaction.
THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)
The final effort during this era would come to an end in 2008, which says a lot about how the movie was received.
However, there was a lot going for the final act in the trilogy that shouldn’t be so easily scoffed at.
But let’s look at these pros and cons with a little bit of further dissection.
Firstly, out of the picture goes Stephen Sommers, which may actually be a good thing when you scrutinise his last couple of efforts.
Sommers has since gone on to what exactly? Directing the start of another franchise with GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra before disappearing into Egyptian dust.
In his place steps Rob Cohen, who had overseen action fare with Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Daylight, The Fast and the Furious, and XXX.
Also out was Rachel Weisz, for supposedly ‘citing problems with the script’ and to look after her newborn son.
This already sparked debate, as part of the appeal of the original movies was the chemistry between the leads.
The role of Evelyn O’Connell went to Maria Bello, who as fine an actress she is, couldn’t capture Weisz’ magic on-screen.
The script-writers do go some way to replicate this obvious change in dynamic by having Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser who does return) and Evie bored with the lack of adventure in their lives, but the damage is already done.
The leads are left to claw their way out of an impossible sandstorm of dialogue to try find that gem or sparkle between them.
The last of the returnees is John Hannah as Jonathon, but despite he’s spot on comic ability struggles to haul the deadweight of a script to life.
The injection of youth to the fore rests solely on the shoulders of a now grown up Alex O’Connell played by Luke Ford an actor schooled on the Meisner technique (a form of Method acting) in which you can’t fault him on his approach to authenticate his character, but once again the humour is missing which you could look to the script for its fault here.
Ford is believable enough, and is able to pull off the action-based moves with ease, but his character simply isn’t engaging enough.
The strengths though do reside with the Eastern contingency of the movie.
The choice to move away from Egypt and set up in China was bold, but the right one.
The franchise could have been in danger of stagnating, and this choice allowed for fresh new life to enter the fold.
Likewise the performances from Jet Li as Emperor Han aka The Dragon Emperor helped to lift the action from page to screen
As does Michelle Yeoh as Zi Yuan who performs with such gravitas that she puts the other actors to shame, such is the strength of her delivery.
It’s hard though to look beyond the faults though.
Despite the cast and crews best efforts, the audience is left with feeling like they’ve just witnessed the story as a square peg being rammed into a round hole.
A shame, as the ideas were there, but with too many of the original players falling by the wayside, the whole notion of recreating the magic.
Despite talks of a fourth instalment and Luke Ford attached to another 3 movies in the cabin, the truth was written in the sand with the poor box office return.
– Paul Farrell
I remember first time that I watched this film guided by the critical praise that had been heaped upon it and feeling somewhat bewildered by this.
I couldn’t get beyond Doctor Pretorius’ invention of the little people, which the FX were incredibly convincing for it’s time, but I just found that it threw me out of the picture because it defied logic and reasoning.
The science behind the novel and indeed it’s predecessor were ground in reality, but this felt like it had crossed a line and into the world of fantasy.
Some people out there might suggest that this is a good thing, but despite Bride of Frankenstein being described as James Whale’s masterpiece, I struggled.
Fast forward to today, when I sat down to review the movie once more, I still stinted at Pretorius’ revelation, but pushed this aside to discover a new-found appreciation for the film.
The opening in particular was a refreshing nod to the inspiration, and creator behind the novel, Mary Shelley.
It recounts of the now infamous discussions between Mary Shelley, her husband Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron.
In this instance she recounts how the original story was only the tip of the iceberg and ventured to tell the tale of more monsters lurking within.
It is here that the story picks up where Frankenstein left off, with the supposed demise of the monster within the burning windmill and Dr Frankenstein (Colin Clive resurrecting his role) being rescued from the rubble.
When lo and behold the monster resurfaces and swiftly dispatches a local and his wife along the way.
Our maniacal Doctor Frankenstein has softened, seeing the error of his ways and is hell bent to put an end to his studies, but is lured back into the laboratory by a fellow scientist, the afore-mentioned Pretorius.
Pretorius seeps into a place of darkness, as he journeys into a mad new “world of Gods and Monsters” in order to see through his experiments.
The strength of the movie though doesn’t come from our protagonists but instead by our antagonist, The Monster, who is once more played by Boris Karloff.
This is his movie and his chance to shine, and shine he does as the script allows him to show more of the human, loving, and misrepresented character.
One of the most powerful scenes comes about when The Monster is stumbling around in the woods and happens to come across a blind man.
This man befriends The Monster and is not swayed by judging him by his appearance.
The friendship is a strong one, as they share in the delights of music and smoking, but this world of companionship would soon come crashing down as some passing hunters discover The Monster and he is forced to flee once more.
The subject of companionship is a strong one in this movie, and drives the plot line forward.
Pretorious seeks the companionship of a fellow scientist as he seeks to carry out his experiments; Frankenstein ultimately is willing to end this in favour of the love he has for his wife; and of course The Monster seeks friendship and when he stumbles upon Pretorius, his offer is all too great and he is willing to follow the mad man.
The cruelty would come at full force though, when The Bride (played by Elsa Lanchester, who also doubled up as Mary Shelley in the film’s prologue scene) is ‘awakened’ but finds the sight of The Monster too horrible to comprehend.
All hell breaks loose and the walls come tumbling down, crushing all but Frankenstein and his wife, who manage to escape just in time.
The film is beautifully shot with some of the framework simply stunning, and along the way has heralded some of the most iconic images to fall in the Universal Monsters universe.
Karloff hits the heart with perfect pain and angst, and his harrowing demise (albeit a rushed conclusion) is the only fitting way for his life to find closure…
Forced into a world that wouldn’t accept him and then just as swiftly dispatched from it, with a cold and abrupt end.
It is worthy successor to the original movie and probably one of the finer sequels to ever have been made.
