Tag Archives: Frankenstein

Del Toro Reanimates a Classic — But Not Without Stitches Showing

15 Saturday Nov 2025

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein arrives with the inevitability of myth. Few contemporary filmmakers are as attuned to the poetry of monsters, and fewer still have built an oeuvre so devoted to the wounded, the wondrous, and the lonely. From Pan’s Labyrinth to The Shape of Water, del Toro has repeatedly crafted worlds where the grotesque becomes tender and the inhuman becomes a mirror. In many ways, Frankenstein should have been his ultimate expression. And yet, despite moments of breathtaking beauty, the film feels curiously unmoored from the gothic, romantic, and macabre heart of Mary Shelley’s novel.

Oscar Isaac delivers a volatile, almost venomous Victor Frankenstein — a man whose brilliance curdles into arrogance long before his creation opens its eyes. His performance pushes Victor into deliberately detestable territory, stripping away any lingering ambiguity and recasting him as a man driven less by intellectual yearning and more by a narcissistic hunger to be remembered. It is a bold interpretation, if not entirely a sympathetic one. Mia Goth, by contrast, seems misaligned with the film’s emotional wavelength; her Elizabeth feels spectral not in a tragic, Shelleyan sense, but in a way that leaves her displaced, as though the world around her was calibrated to a frequency she cannot quite inhabit.

Visually, however, Frankenstein is nothing short of sumptuous. Del Toro orchestrates frames that glow with painterly chiaroscuro — all bruise-blue moonlight, cathedral shadows, and the soft, funereal glow of candlelit laboratories. The creature’s awakening is a moment of pure cinema, a fusion of tactile prosthetics and operatic staging that reminds us why del Toro remains one of the most distinct visual fantasists working today. His fascination with the act of creation — as miracle, as violation — pulses through every coil of wire and stitched sinew.

But it is precisely here that the film begins to diverge from Shelley’s vision. Del Toro embellishes the narrative with new mythologies, symbolic digressions, and philosophical asides that, while intriguing, often pull the story away from its emotional core. Shelley’s novel is a haunting meditation on responsibility and alienation, its tragedy rooted in the fragile bond between creator and creation. Del Toro’s additions, though imaginative, diffuse this intimacy. The more the film expands outward — into backstory, lore, and ornate world-building — the further it drifts from the stark, romantic terror that makes Frankenstein endure.

This impulse is not new in del Toro’s cinema. His career is defined by a tension between narrative simplicity and imaginative excess. His greatest works embrace that balance: the aching solitude of The Devil’s Backbone, the fairy-tale fatalism of Pan’s Labyrinth, the delicate monstrosity of The Shape of Water. In Frankenstein, however, the scales tip slightly too far toward embellishment. The result is a film that is still enthralling to behold, but one that sometimes mutates the story so much that its thematic marrow — creation as curse, loneliness as inheritance — becomes diluted.

Still, even when it falters, del Toro’s Frankenstein contains moments of exquisite power: the creature standing beneath a storm-lit sky, grappling with consciousness; Victor, trembling not with triumph but with the first stirrings of dread; the quiet spaces where the monster reaches toward a world that will not reach back. These sequences remind us of what del Toro understands so deeply — that monsters are never the true horrors, but rather reflections of what humanity refuses to confront.

The Prognosis:

Frankenstein may not be the definitive adaptation its pedigree suggests. But as a work of del Toro’s imagination — a meditation on creation, isolation, and the fantastical — it is still compelling, still resonant, and still marked by the unmistakable touch of a filmmaker who has spent his career searching for beauty in the broken.

  • Saul Muerte

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed: Hammer’s Bleak Descent into Moral Horror

16 Friday May 2025

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Peter Cushing delivers his darkest turn as Baron Frankenstein in Terence Fisher’s brutal, uncompromising portrait of ambition unmoored from humanity.

Few characters in horror history have undergone as grim an evolution as Hammer Films’ Baron Victor Frankenstein. By 1969, the once-charming and impassioned scientist had metamorphosed into something altogether colder, crueller — and never more so than in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. Marking one of the studio’s boldest and bleakest entries, Terence Fisher’s film plunges audiences into a chilling moral abyss, anchored by Peter Cushing’s most malevolent portrayal of the Baron.

From the outset, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is suffused with an atmosphere of stark brutality. Gone is the romanticised ambition of earlier installments; in its place stands a portrait of Frankenstein as a calculating sociopath, concerned only with his own vindication. Peter Cushing, always a master of understated menace, turns in a performance of extraordinary steeliness — chillingly urbane one moment, terrifyingly ruthless the next. His Baron is a man for whom human life is but clay to be shaped, discarded, or destroyed in pursuit of scientific triumph.

Fisher, who had been instrumental in defining Hammer’s gothic aesthetic, embraces a far colder visual palette here. The film trades ornate castles and vibrant colors for stark, drained settings — a reflection of Frankenstein’s spiritual desolation. Even the violence feels less operatic and more intimately brutal, culminating in moments that strip the mythos of any lingering romanticism.

Central to the film’s enduring controversy is the much-discussed scene in which Frankenstein rapes Anna (Veronica Carlson) — a moment absent from the original script and forced upon the production by studio pressure. Both Cushing and Carlson vehemently opposed the inclusion, and their disapproval seeps into the scene’s palpable discomfort. While ethically troubling, the moment undeniably darkens the character beyond redemption, underscoring the film’s unflinching portrayal of moral collapse. It transforms Frankenstein from a misguided idealist into a full-fledged predator — a monster not of nature, but of willful cruelty.

Carlson and Simon Ward, portraying the beleaguered couple ensnared in Frankenstein’s machinations, deliver affecting performances that heighten the tragedy. Carlson, in particular, lends a dignified pathos to a role burdened by the demands of a narrative far more nihilistic than Hammer’s previous outings.

Freddie Jones, in his first major film role as the tragic Professor Brandt, is a revelation. His performance captures both the physical fragility and the mental anguish of a man resurrected against his will, trapped within a stolen body and a crumbling mind. Jones infuses Brandt with a quiet dignity and simmering rage, crafting a character whose humanity serves as a stark rebuke to Frankenstein’s inhumanity. His confrontation with Cushing in the film’s final act offers a rare glimmer of emotional depth amid the relentless bleakness, elevating the story beyond pure gothic horror into something far more sorrowful and profound.

Thematically, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed confronts the corrosion of empathy under the guise of scientific pursuit. It suggests that evil need not spring from grandiose ambitions but from the erosion of everyday decency. Frankenstein’s destruction of lives — not in moments of passion, but through cold, bureaucratic calculation — offers a horror far more enduring than any stitched-together monster.

The Prognosis:

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed stands as a stark outlier within the Hammer canon — a film willing to fully reckon with the darkness its iconic character had always flirted with. Though marred by studio-imposed controversy, it remains a harrowing, essential entry in the Frankenstein cycle — a reminder that sometimes the true monster wears the most respectable face.

  • 1960s retrospective review by Saul Muerte

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: A Gothic Experiment That Thrives and Falters Under Its Own Ambition

22 Sunday Dec 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

When Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein debuted in 1994, Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of the seminal novel seemed like a breath of fresh air for gothic cinema. Positioned as a faithful retelling of Shelley’s groundbreaking work, the film’s operatic tone, lavish production design, and reverence for its source material made it feel like an audacious attempt to elevate gothic horror into a grand cinematic spectacle. Thirty years on, however, while the film retains its place as a fascinating adaptation, time has revealed both its achievements and its missteps.

Branagh, who directed and starred as Victor Frankenstein, approached the material with a larger-than-life theatricality, pouring a seemingly unrestrained passion into the story. At the time, this intensity felt like a bold choice, giving audiences a film steeped in gothic aesthetics, from sweeping landscapes and haunting laboratories to thunderous scores and unrelenting melodrama. But in hindsight, the weight of Branagh’s vision comes across as excessive. The film’s relentless emotional intensity often teeters on overwrought, with every confrontation, revelation, and tragedy turned up to operatic levels. While this approach may have felt daring in 1994, it now feels like it undermines some of the subtler complexities of Shelley’s narrative.

Yet, there are elements of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein that remain undeniably effective. The performances of Robert De Niro as the Creature and Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth elevate the film beyond its uneven execution. De Niro’s portrayal of the Creature is deeply affecting, bringing an unexpected humanity and pathos to the role. His embodiment of Shelley’s philosophical questions about creation, abandonment, and revenge remains one of the film’s most enduring strengths. Similarly, Bonham Carter imbues Elizabeth with a warmth and intelligence that makes her tragic arc all the more harrowing, particularly in the film’s climactic and macabre finale.

Visually, the film continues to impress. Its production design, helmed by Tim Harvey, crafts an immersive gothic world, from the icy Arctic wastes to the shadowy confines of Victor’s laboratory. Patrick Doyle’s score, a bombastic and emotive accompaniment, heightens the film’s gothic grandeur, even as it sometimes amplifies the melodrama.

Ultimately, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a film of contradictions: innovative yet excessive, faithful yet flawed. Its ambition to stay true to the novel’s thematic depths deserves admiration, but Branagh’s unchecked directorial choices leave the narrative buckling under the weight of its own gravitas.

Thirty years later, it remains an intriguing, if imperfect, entry in gothic cinema, a reminder of both the power and perils of artistic vision. For all its faults, it is still an enjoyable film and one that warrants revisiting—if only to marvel at its audacity and revel in the brilliance of De Niro and Bonham Carter.

  • Saul Muerte

Frankenstein Created Woman: Science Meets Soul in Hammer’s Boldest Frankenstein Entry Yet

16 Saturday Nov 2024

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By its fourth entry in Hammer’s Frankenstein saga, Frankenstein Created Woman veered into uncharted thematic territory, exploring the transference of the soul rather than focusing solely on the reconstruction of flesh. The film’s roots trace back to an abandoned concept for the Tales of Frankenstein television series, which was later resurrected as a collaboration between Hammer and Twentieth Century Fox. Loosely inspired by Roger Vadim’s And God Created Woman, the feature delved into theological and philosophical dimensions, examining identity, morality, and the repercussions of manipulating the human essence. This ambitious narrative shift elevated it among Hammer’s catalog and gained recognition from cinephiles such as Martin Scorsese.

Central to the film’s success is Peter Cushing’s commanding reprisal of Baron Frankenstein. Cushing’s nuanced performance lends gravitas to the morally ambiguous doctor, whose unrelenting pursuit of scientific discovery transcends ethical boundaries. Opposite Cushing is Susan Denberg as Christina, a woman resurrected with a fractured identity. The tragic duality of Christina and her lover Hans, whose soul is embedded within her, provides a poignant underpinning to the grotesque premise. Denberg, a former Playboy Playmate immersed in the vibrant “It” crowd of the 1960s, including Roman Polanski, brought an uncanny mix of fragility and menace to her role. To bolster the film’s appeal, she was featured in a high-profile publicity campaign, though her career in film was short-lived. With its innovative focus on the isolation of the soul and a revenge-driven narrative, Frankenstein Created Woman became a bold and emotionally charged addition to the Hammer canon.

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective: The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)

13 Sunday Nov 2022

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Hot off the tails of Hammer’s iconic release of Dracula aka Horror of Dracula, the British Film production company would look to follow up on the success of their other Gothic feature, The Curse of Frankenstein. That film as noted at the time had the titular Baron played by Peter Cushing (returning once more here) heading for the guillotine. His resurrection would be a simple enough with Frankenstein paying off his executioner and escaping to form an alternate identity as Dr. Victor Stein set up his own successful practice in Carlsbruck. His alias is soon uncovered however by fellow doctor and admirer of Frankenstein’s work, Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews). Hans teams up with Frankenstein, eager to learn his methods and the two set work in picking up where he last left off, with the creation of life.

As part of these scientific methods, Frankenstein is accompanied by a hunchback, Karl (Oscar Quitak) who volunteers his brain in the promise of a new body (Michael Gwynne). It wouldn’t be a Hammer film without its share of drama and conflict which comes at the hand of Karl being beaten by a janitor damaging his brain and transforming his personality into a cannibalistic, decaying frame. From here, Frankenstein’s demise is on the cards and the town will awaken to his dark deeds.

Despite having a rushed script, the final cut would do well for Hammer, pulling in enough income at the box office and would be commended for a well handled screenplay ably supported by Jack Asher’s cinematography along with Terence Fisher’s directing. This is Cushing’s film though and his poise and acidic portrayal is one that lifts The Revenge of Frankenstein marking a successful franchise return and arguably one that is seen by some as better than its predecessor.

– Saul Muerte

Retrospective: The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957)

17 Saturday Sep 2022

Posted by in retrospective

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

For me, The Curse of Frankenstein would mark the official change of the guard in horror films from Universal to Hammer. Not only did it revamp the now stagnant monster franchise, but propelled a new identity in the Gothic scene thanks to the vision of its director Terence Fisher; its two leads Peter Cushing in stoic form as the titular Baron Frankenstein and the heavily made up Sir Christopher Lee as the creature; but also the X factor charged with and championed by the films’ producers, setting a tone that would be replicated for another couple of decades to come. It also would have in its company writer Jimmy Sangster and composer James Bernard, who would both be part of Hammer’s signature. Above all else though, it would be Hammer’s first colour creature feature; one that would highlight all the blood, gore, and extravagant costumes with a vibrancy not seen on the big screen before.

Cushing and Lee would also prove to be a formidable duo before the camera for Hammer, for another 7 times with varying degrees of success. Lee would have to endure two to three hours in the makeup chair as Phil Leakey crafted the final, repulsive look from mortician’s wax, cotton wool, and rubber. The look deliberately steered away from Universal’ previous incarnation due to legal rights, allowing Hammer to present a unique spin on Mary Shelley’s classic tale. 

The narrative is told in flashbacks as Baron Frankenstein awaits a trip to the gallows,  but never wavers from his pursuit of achieving and creating life beyond the grave. What is starkly different from its predecessor is the cold and meticulous manner that Frankenstein’s actions are driven to in order to attain his goal. It is this characterisation and Cushing’s portrayal that offers a darkly disturbing version and one that is explored further throughout the various instalments that follow, most notably Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed which Cushing and fellow star Veronica Carlson believed crossed the boundaries of good taste.

The British press would initially turn up their noses to Hammer’s adaptation, with a general feel that it was purely for sadists. Both the British and American public would lap it up, which may or may not say something about our society. Regardless, it was enough of a reaction that was considered huge for its time that it would cement the foundations for Hammer Films and pave the way for their success to follow. It would also spawn a cult following and be an inspiration for many filmmakers to come. 

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective: The Abbott and Costello Universal Monster years

20 Sunday Feb 2022

Posted by in retrospective, Universal Horror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite some reluctance from the stars, Bud Abbott and Lou Costello’s light was starting to wane in the public eye, and along with their contract through Universal were tied to another outing; one that would preserve their initial encounter with the Production house’ monsters into the National Film Registry for its historical significance. That film would be…

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Here would mark a turning point for Universal, who had made a great deal of success through the 1930s for their Gothic line of Universal films. This notable change would occur at a time when the inkwell was running dry, and the Production house would be looking for alternate ways to capitalise on their winning formula by subverting the genre from horror to comedy. This transposition would not be treated in kind, especially from Lon Chaney Jr, who would proclaim “Abbott and Costello ruined the horror films: they made buffoons out of the monsters…”
His words would hold deeper meaning for the future of Universal’s horror genre, which by the end of the 50s would be all but non-existent. Despite this and during the time of its release, the film would go on to be one of the most successful of the Frankenstein franchise.

In Meet Frankenstein, the comedy duo would be pitted against The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr), Dracula (Bela Lugosi – who would actually speak favourably of the depiction of his most known character), and The Monster (Glenn Strange) to keep alive the buzz generated from their monster universe. It even boasts a cameo from The Invisible Man in the film’s climax, voiced by Vincent Price.

A lot of the movie revolves around pantomime tricks and scares but brought to life by the comic timing of Costello who falls prey to the “cry wolf” syndrome, despite his cries being genuine, combined with Abbott’s straight man routine. Despite my ambivalence towards the movie, as in heart I echoed Chaney Jr’s sentiments, the film would still holds a strong position. The looks to camera breaking the fourth wall was a joy to watch, and the formula would generate s further four movies for Abbott and Costello in the Universal Monsters universe. The first of these would be…

Abbott and Costello Meet The Killer, Boris Karloff (1949)

Rounding out the 40s, Boris Karloff was the only notable star absent from the previous movie, although he was paid to promote it, and was also reluctant to watch it. Karloff was hired only five days before shooting began, the role originally a female called Madame Switzer, and would play that of a swami with mysterious intent.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, a whodunnit where Costello’s bellboy Freddie becomes the prime suspect in a murder. And when the body count starts to pile up, he can’t seem to get rid of the corpses to clear his name. This would lead to a hilarious scene where Costello and Abbott (supporting him to prove his innocence as detective Casey) play a game of cards with some of the cadavers.

Lenore Aubert is also brought in to support, as the femme fatale Angela Gordon. This continues a theme from Meet Frankenstein where the female costar attempts to seduce Costello, much to Abbott’s chagrin.

Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man (1951)

Having dangled the imperceptible carrot in Meet Frankenstein it was inevitable that Abbott and Costello would come face to face with the Invisible Man. This time our anti-hero is played by Athur Franz as Tommy Nelson, a boxer who is framed for the murder of his manager after refusing to throw a fight. Out to prove his innocence, Tommy steals the invisible formula from scientist Dr. Gray (Gavin Muir) who warns him of the dangers of the serum and the effects that brought about the ruin of Jack Griffin. 

Abbott and Costello enter the scene as private detectives by Tommy during the investigation and become embroiled in the mystery leading Costello’s Lou Francis to go undercover as an underdog in the boxing scene aided by the invisible Tommy to help him win the fights.

Sandwiched between this feature and the next Universal confrontation would be Abbott and Costello Go To Mars, another indication of Universal’s departure from the horror scene and into the world of science fiction, which would be in tune with the popular zeitgeist of the time.

Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1953)

Abbott and Costello’s fourth outing in the Universal Monster scene drawing inspiration from the Robert Louis Stevenson novel and are cast as American detectives in Edwardian London following the pursuit of some murders that have taken place, allegedly by Dr. Jekyll, played by Boris Karloff. The Hyde counterpart would be portrayed by stuntman Eddie Parker.

Interestingly, there would be no transformation scenes, instead depicting both Jekyll and Hyde individually, and fuelling the idea that there is no good at all in Dr. Jekyll, who yearns for the misdeeds performed by his alter-ego.

The film itself would also show the cracks beginning to form in Universal’s marriage with the comic duo, with signs that the humour was running dry, resorting to slapstick performances. There would however, be one more feature before Abbott and Costello would bow out of the comedy / horror scene…

Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy (1955)

28 movies into their working partnership for Universal-International, Abbott and Costello would play against the last of the production house monster’s, the mummified Klaris (Eddie Parker). The comedy duo find themselves in the midst of an archaeological feud between Semu (Richard Deacon) and Madame Rontru (Marie Windsor) for the treasures of Princess Ara and control over Klaris. 

Abbott and Costello would continue their usual comedy schtick but here it sits well as they bumble around Cairo. It is somewhat fitting that they could lay their comedy horror routine to rest amongst the Egyptian tombs. Their routine by this time is becoming stale and trying. They would eventually part ways in 1957 albeit amicably.

  • Saul Muerte

Related Links:

Dracula (1931)

The Mummy (1932)

The Invisible Man (1933)

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Movie review: A Nightmare Wakes (2021)

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Movie review

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I really wanted to like this movie.

For one it boasts one of the more infamous settings in Gothic literature, the stormy night that Lord Byron challenged his guests to come up with a story to scare and chill the soul. This challenge brought his physician, John William Polidori to come up with his novel, The Vampyre, but more importantly it bore witness to the birth of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

With that kind of source material cast on the banks of Lake Geneva and set during the romantic victorian period you’d think it would be ripe with potential.

Sadly though it feels more like a blurred dream as director Nora Unkel strives to create her vision in a living nightmare.

The tone seems completely off and out of key, which is a shame.

If I can take any positives out of the film is that it centres on Mary Shelley’s plight as the mistress to the great poet Percy Shelley and the status that she is subjected to because of her position in society. Unkel expertly wrangles out the male chauvinistic attitude that was portrayed at the time and in some cases is still prevalent today. I found it interesting and indeed a bold choice to cast Percy Shelley in a dark light, where he was the perfect image of sentimentality. The brutal truth exposed, but could have been capitalised further and in order to capture the stuff of nightmare, could have sharpened the tools of doom and disaster.

It is during the aforementioned time that Mary stays with her partner, Shelley, her sister Claire, Lord Byron, and Polidori ata the Byron house where all manner of sinister things occur that she begins to hallucinate, drawing her fictionalised novel into reality.

These illusions albeit shocking for the time that it was set, feels too trapped in the romantic side of the Victoria Era and although it does draw forth the dramatic component of the free-living lifestyle that that led, it doesn’t tap into the darker side that the period became known for and sparked numerous classic pieces of literature as a result.

The Prognosis:

A Nightmare Wakes has the perfect setting and source material to pull from, but rather than rise to the occasion, it shuffles slowly along to an incredibly boring conclusion.

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective: The House of Frankenstein (1944)

04 Friday Dec 2020

Posted by in Movie review, retrospective, Universal Horror

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Some thirteen years after the release of Dracula back in 1931, Universal now had a decent backlog of Universal Monsters in their midst.
After the relative success of Frankenstein vs The Wolf Man, which pitted two of their creatures head to head in its climax, it was a logical step to combine as many as possible into the one film. 

In order for this trick to be pulled off successfully however, requires some clever plot devices to wrangle each intricate characteristic into a believable situation. Curt Siodmak was called upon to carry out this difficult task, which seems a logical choice as he had overseen a lot of the Universal horror movies during the time. His decision was to introduce a new character in Dr. Gustav Niemann, a mad scientist played by Boris Karloff in what would be his last role in the Universal horror franchise. Accompanying him from a prison break is hunchback (another trope), Daniel (J. Carrol Naish), who is willing to carry out Niemann’s demands with the promise of a new body. 

Niemann though only has revenge in mind for the three people who wronged him and sent him to prison. 

This story is really told in two parts; the first part being the revenge on Burgemeister Hussman, which Niemann does by initially killing Professor Lampini and taking on his identity as a travelling showman and his Chamber of Horrors. The show in question just so happens to contain the skeletal remains of Count Dracula with the stake still impaled. Legend has it that if the stake were to be removed, Dracula would once again walk the earth. Naturally this happens, but Niemann convinces the Count (John Carradine) to carry out his task of ridding him of his nemesis with the promise of protection. Once the Count offs Hussman though, the group land in a spot of bother and Niemann quickly reneges on his agreement and ditches Dracula’s coffin, forcing him to submit to the sunlight and ultimately be destroyed. Dracula’s demise seems all too easy and as such renders him slightly useless in the movie and far from menacing.

The latter half of the movie focuses on the resurrection of Frankenstein’s monster (Glenn Strange) and The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) who were last seen washed away with the flood that submerged the ruins of Frankenstein’s castle. It turns out that they had been frozen in ice, and Niemann thaws them both, once again hoping to use them to his advantage. 

The film is aided by the return of Chaney Jr and the troubled Larry Talbot who continuously serves as the heart of the franchise. Here, a love triangle is formed as he finds himself falling for a gypsy girl Ilonka (Elena Verdugo – who was a descendant of the Verdugo family that founded Los Angeles), rescued by Daniel and Niemann. The former has also fallen for Ilonka’s charms and is then driven by jealousy when his love is not reciprocated, and also by anger from Niemann’s failure not to live up to his promise.

The climax is nicely tied up with a collision of personalities all vying for different means, and when that clash comes it can only lead to the demise of all, be it silver bullet, thrown from the roof, or driven into the swamp quicksand from angry villagers wielding flaming torches.

On face value, Siodmak ticks all the boxes of what can be expected from each of the characters but ultimately, there is nothing new to offer at hand, and because of this the film falls short on satisfaction. It is still a solid production, entertains, but never does enough to lift itself above the standards of its predecessors.

It was great to see Karloff (he definitely owns this movie and deserves to wield the lead antagonist mantle) and Lon Chaney Jr share screen time together, but the chance to have the creatures provide any form of menace are  squandered. 

  • Saul Muerte

Retrospective: Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943)

24 Tuesday Nov 2020

Posted by in retrospective

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man marks a significant moment for Universal Pictures as it was the first instance that the production company introduced an ensemble of monsters in a single feature.
This film would initiate the birth of the classic horror universe and would pit two of its iconic creatures, Frankenstein’s monster and The Wolf Man against one another. 

Clearly aware that Universal had a hot property on their hands and the chance to ride on their previous successes, a strong cast would be required and they didn’t fail to deliver.
Reprising his role of Larry Talbot would be Lon Chaney Jr., and accompanying him would be Maria Ouspenskaya (The Wolf Man) as the gypsy woman Maleva, Lionel Atwill (The Atomic Monster) as the Mayor, Ilona Massey (Invisible Agent) as Baroness Elsa Frankenstein, Patric Knowles (The Strange Case of Dr. Rx) as Dr. Mannering, and Dwight Frye (Dracula) as Rudi in his last credited role in feature film.

Interestingly Bela Lugosi was cast as Frankenstein’s Monster, a role he was initially cast to play in Universal’s 1931 feature but turned it down.
Here at the age of 60, Lugosi would try to inject some of the character’s previous personality as imbued from Ygor’s brain swap from The Ghost of Frankenstein.
These characteristics included a paralysis of his arm, blindness, and the ability to talk.
The latter however was cut from the final film as people found the notion of The Monster speaking in a deep Hungarian accent too humorous.
Lugosi’s suppressed efforts didn’t end there as scenes were cut, especially any reference to the Monster’s blindness as it was deemed too confusing. The result saw Lugosi’s actual screen time reduced significantly and the feature feels more like a sequel to The Wolf Man than it does as a continuation in the Frankenstein saga. 

The positive outcome to this is that Larry Talbot’s story and plight is one worth telling, reawakened when grave robbers remove the wolfbane from his coffin during a full moon.
(These moments of reanimation would become more far-fetched throughout the Classic Monsters universe but somehow part of its charm too).
Here, Talbot is doomed to walk the earth in his hairy transformation whenever the moon is full until he can end his life.
When Talbot learns of Frankenstein’s experiments, he believes this may be the answer to his prayers.

So, the first half of the feature plays out Talbot’s resurrection, turmoil, and recovery at Dr Mannering’s hospital, while the latter half sees him travel to the village of Vasaria, where he would encounter Frankenstein’s descendant Elsa.

The heart of the film is ultimately what connects us to the narrative, but unfortunately the final showdown between the two iconic monsters was something of a let down and an opportunity was squandered when they clashed at the ruins of Frankenstein’s castle. 

Despite this weak ending the film does still entertain, but this is primarily down to its strong cast and able screenwriting from Curt Siodmak.

Frankenstein’s monster and The Wolf Man would not reanimate again until 1944’s House of Frankenstein in something of a support role.

  • Saul Muerte