Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

NIGHT 30

     "Young people making the most of life... while it lasts."

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) (also known as Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein) is a loose sequel to the Universal horror films. Toward the end of the run of monster movies the studio was willing to try anything to revive interest in the classic monsters and this film proved to be an instant hit.

Chick and Wilbur work as freight handling baggage clerks where they get a strange delivery that they have to personally deliver to a 'house of horrors', wax museum. Unfortunately for them, the horrors in these crates are very real.

One of the things I really like about this film is it has a very simple good story. Dracula wants to put Wilbur's brain into the Frankenstein monster to make him completely obedient and Laurence Talbert knows Dracula is up to something but can't turn him in and has to quietly follow him because of his own dark monster side. All the while Wilbur is one of the few humans to catch on that something is up, but Chick and the others just think he's a babbling idiot so they don't listen. It really is a great idea of how to blend an Abbott & Costello story and a Universal monster movie.

This film has some really great situational humor. Director Charles Barton was the main director of Abbot & Costello sketches through out their careers and this film is a fine example at how good they were with those. I love the way they incorporate the "horror movie-ism"s into some more classic Abbott & Costello style sketches like the revolving door with the trick candle and the part where they're trying to run away from Frankenstein's monster and Dracula at the same time and they end up and down the castle stairs and into and out of rooms and even barricading a door in a room only to have Frankenstein's monster just open it in the opposite direction. Also the fact that they have Bud Abbot dressed in just a black dress shirt and grey slacks with his costume that just consists of a wolf mask, and Lon Chaney is wearing the same thing before he transforms into the wolf man makes for some really smart and well planned out mistaken identity. It's brilliant and hilarious stuff.

As an audience today we're really not used to comedies like this anymore and some of the skits (like the ones mentioned above) can seem a bit long-winded when viewed today. I think the problem is we're so used to quick faster paced movies that when you watch a film like this where they spend ten minutes on a revolving door gag or even five minutes with Lou messing around with luggage our brains just kind of belittle the comedy in-front of us.

Probably my favorite thing about this film is its dialogue and verbal jokes. This film has some hilarious comedy via puns and jokes that crack me up every time. This is of course amplified by Abbott & Costello's mastery of comic timing and facial expressions. I love the running gags with Wilbur's inability to speak when he's frightened so he has to pantomime the Dracula and Monster walks.

And I gotta mention the performances of Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. This film is a must see for classic monster fans because of these two, they really just give it their all and really don't hold back even though this is just a silly comedy. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his magnificent role as the troubled and tortured Wolf Man (1941) like it was yesterday for him and even though it had been far longer since Lon Chaney donned his cape and fangs you can still really see here why his performance is still considered one of the greatest adaptations of Dracula (1931). Both of these actors just loved the characters and there is no greater proof than their performances in this film.

While Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) may have just been a studio's grab at helping a dying franchise, it's proof to me that horror and monsters can be used in more ways than just to scare people. This is ever so proven in present day where we still get "monster mania" at least once a year.

4.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




Tomorrow is the final night of this year's 31 Nights of Macabre Movies! I'm gonna send it off right with a great animated zombie film from last year!

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

The Body Snatcher (1945)

DAY 19

"I must be rid of you. You've become a cancer, a malignant evil cancer rotting my mind!"

The Body Snatcher (1945) is a horror film about what is right and moral and what one needs to do for the good of others. The story revolves around a Dr. MacFarlane and his new pupil, Donald Fettes. Fettes quickly meats a Cabman by the name of John Gray who has some kind of history with MacFarlane, but the Doctor won't speak of it, and Fettes realizes there's something very strange about how Dr. MacFarlane gets the bodies for his dissections from Mr. Gray.

I really like this story a lot, this is probably due to the fact that it's based on a short story by Robert Luis Stevenson (author of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Treasure Island.) It's a very, very dark story that was inspired by the true events of the Burke and Hare Murders and has a very Poe-esque feel to it.

And while the sets really aren't that amazing compared to many of this movie's day, this film has them lit perfectly in each scene. There's a whole lot of really great mood and darkness that is accomplished in this film way better than most of the Universal Horror movies of the era.

I must warn you this is a pretty slow film. Audiences today might not be able to deal with how slow it is, but it is all for a purpose: to set the mood. This is a very moody film. It takes lots of time to dwell on shots, show the quiet of the night or how a character is feeling and all this is done amazingly with limited soundtrack use! All this isn't really a negative I'm just giving fair warning, but if you are patient the second half of the film will definitely pay off and reward those who can wait.

The setting of this film really ties into the theme which I thought was amazing. Set in 1831, this is a time when the new advances in Science require some bending of the morals that have chained society for hundreds of years. This is something I don't see too much these days and I really enjoyed how it was used in this film.

I really loved all of the characters in this film, they're all very well defined and very likable (each in their own way), but the stand out role in this film is the Cabman Mr. Gray played by Boris Karloff. Karloff is absolutely amazing in this role, he plays it in such a crazy sinister way, but also has a very humorous approach to it so that you almost like the guy! It's a trip, and this film is absolutely worth watching just for Karloff's performance.

A special shout out to my friend Chase for recommending this film to me, it's a great find. The Body Snatcher (1945) is a film that's often unfortunately overlooked. The film had to be redubbed and retitled in England upon release because it was so dark and it's the last film to feature both Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, so what is there not to like!? I highly recommend anyone who likes horror to check this one out. 4/5 stars.

Happy watching!





I found a copy of The Body Snatcher on youtube so you can check it out free of charge right here!

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)

DAY 16

"You know, it's an interesting thing when you consider... the earth people who can think are so frightened by those who cannot...the dead."

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) originally titled "Grave Robbers from Outer Space" (which would have been a much better title) is a low-budget science fiction movie about aliens that come to Earth to resurrect the dead in an attempt to control mankind. This film by infamous director Edward Wood, Jr. is often considered one of the worst movies ever made.

One of the things I like about this movie is the editing. It's very straightforward and simple but effective. There's lots of stock footage that's integrated so well you don't wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it.

Likewise I think the soundtrack is, though nothing extraordinary, simple and memorable. It adds a lot of tension and drama to a lot of scenes that would be very flat otherwise.

I'm not even going to try and make excuses for the problems in this film. Let's see, it has horrible sets, most of the acting is just plain bad, the dialogue doesn't even make sense a lot of the time, and almost everything about the aliens is just plain poorly done. There's continuity problems, the effects probably didn't hold up even back then, obvious day for night shots, and even screen direction problems. But my favorites have to be the "logic" problems like cops that don't carry flashlights, the US government developing a language computer to translate the alien transmissions, and the aliens' mind-controlling electron gun jamming! All this adds up to a pretty hilariously bad film.

So after all that, why do I like this film even remotely? This film has a real charm to it. I believe you can tell how passionate the filmmaker was about this film just by watching the end result. There's a lot of really creative things that Ed Wood came up with and did to make things in this movie work and honestly I think as a film, it still holds up for the most part! He was working in the genre of science fiction, and if you compare it to other Sci-Fi films of the 50's, I would argue this one is pretty effective comparatively.

I also want to mention how well thought out the aliens' logic is. This alone can be seen as a testament to Ed Wood's creativity. They aliens have such a well developed and original backstory and motive that it's almost easier to side with the aliens! Really cool.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) isn't the worst made film by a long shot. Sure it's got a lot technically wrong with it, but it's an interesting example of how to make a film on a practical (small!) budget and I actually find it pretty inspiring believe it or not! 3/5 stars.

Happy watching!





Unlike everything else I've reviewed so far on this blog, Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) is in the public domain which means you can download it or stream it for free from here thanks to the Internet Archive.

The Wolf Man (1941)

DAY 10

The Wolf Man (1941) is a classic monster film starring Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry Talbot, who returns home to his father in the wake of his brother's death and finds there's more going on in his home town than he remembers. Larry kills a ravenous wolf (only after being bitten) and finds himself suddenly the under suspicion for killing a man. Everyone suspects Larry is delusional or mistaken, but Larry knows he killed a wolf.

The story in The Wolf Man is actually really interesting, I can't think of many stories like this that that combine mystery with magical. The story plays out like a mystery but with fantastical elements and the horror of it actually comes from Larry Talbot's suffering and strife. I also liked how they work in some subtle but interesting statements on religion and class.

There are some odd plot holes or maybe not holes, so much as cracks that I saw. Primarily involving the pendant that the gypsy gives Larry. She says to "Always wear this over your heart," so what does Larry do? Larry looks to save the girl he think will be in danger and quickly gives this to her, which as a result will cause his own downfall. Now if this pendant (which ends up doing nothing in the film) actually could save the inflicted werewolf, why was the first werewolf a gypsy?! Did the Gypsy girl not want to give the pendant to the gypsy Bela for some reason? This really doesn't make sense at all. Then there's always the fact that the first werewolf Bela was actually a wolf (walking on four legs), and then for some reason he bites Larry who becomes a Wolf Man (that walks on two legs...?)

The other thing that bothered me was when the police are investigating Larry after the first incident, Larry's wound has healed magically and there's no dead wolf to be found, so they come to the conclusion he's crazy. But the investigator actually points out the fact that Larry came home he had a bloody jacket from a bite. I wouldn't have even thought of the physical evidence that would have left until the investigator actually points it out! After that, instead of checking the old clothes for proficient bleeding he just assumes that Larry imagined the whole thing! I...don't...understand!?

All in all I'm sad to report this is another film that hasn't weathered the ages of time too well. The beginning of the film spends a lot of time expelling tons of awkward exposition (note this is after the film opens on a page explaining what a werewolf is!) They say the poem of the werewolf, THREE TIMES. By the time they say it a third time it's just hilarious. That is not something easy to work in naturally. I found it interesting they try to work in a little bit of comedy like some of the other Universal horror films, with the assistant to the police being kind of a bumbling idiot. But unfortunately he has only two scenes and when they occur it's just kind of awkward in the midst of everything else that's going on. It's just so unnecessary. Also the film ends very abruptly, this isn't all necessarily bad it's just kind of awkward. Like the lead up wasn't fully paid off, it just seems like an old movie standard that just doesn't hold up today.

The acting in The Wolf Man is really something special. The cast is great with Claude Rains as the Senior Talbot, Maria Ouspenskaya as the gypsy Maleva, the wonderful Evelyn Ankers as the love interest Gwen and even Bela Lugosi in a small but memorable part as the gypsy werewolf who is fittingly named Bela. But above all the actor to see this film for is Lon Chaney Jr. Lon brings such a great range of emotion to the character Larry Talbot that there's no way you can not feel for his character. It's easy to remember his character as suffering and full of strife because he plays it so well but the film actually does an interesting thing by setting him up as a very happy skirt chaser without much care in the world, this make his transition even greater.

All in all The Wolf Man (1941) might seem a bit dated viewed today but the story is still good, the acting is amazing and the film just has a really nice charm to it. 3.5/5 stars.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Dracula (1931)

DAY 3

1931's Dracula is considered a classic of the monster genre. In fact Universal considers this film to be the first official film in their line of 'Universal Monsters' films (even though they had about six films before that!) Dracula is obviously an adaption of Bram Stoker's original work but it was based primarily on the 1924 stage play. It's actually fairly accurate to Stoker's novel to a point, but plays out like a highlight reel jumping through to the most memorable moments from the story.

One thing to see this film for is the amazing sets and costumes. This is something that Universal was known for with all of their early monster movies and Dracula is a shining example.

Also I would even say that story-wise this adaption is one of the most accurate to Stoker's original work. Still there's whole scenes they glance over or merely nod to, (I'm assuming for time reasons), but even this is done in interesting ways. The film basically only hints that Mina has been bit by The Count without showing much of anything, but later there's a scene on a terrace where Mina's fiancé Jonathan is talking to her about it and the way she describes her experience is far more interesting than if they actually showed it.

Unfortunately, I feel like this movie hasn't aged super well. The advent of Talkies like The Jazz Singer was only 4 years previous and I feel it really shows. The direction of this film is pretty amateur. Director Tod Browning was primarily known for his silent career, and stopped making movies within the next decade. Also the effects though practical back then, don't hold up at all. I'm not even just talking about the fake spider on a string or the very fake bat prop but there's this camera move every time Dracula gets out of his coffin the camera pans to the side and looks out the window then pans back and suddenly he's standing there. This would be fine once but the film does this three times. By the third instance this seems VERY overdone.

The movie has a very slow pace. Something I can chalk up to part of it's charm, it adds a lot of interesting mood and creepiness to the picture. It’s something that can be interesting to watch but is definitely a remnant of the silent generation of film, and can put you to sleep pretty quickly if you're watching this late at night or after a long day.

So after all that, why is this film a classic? I believe it’s the acting. The whole cast is really amazing. But of course the memorable work is done by Bela Lugosi who’s acting comes through more than in just his words but how he carries himself, his slow but precise movements and of course those “haunting” eyes. Supposedly I’ve heard that Lugosi’s slow speech was due to the fact that he couldn’t actually speak English at the time, however after watching it a couple times and listening close I think this might actually be more of an urban legend than anything. I’d also like to think it was an acting choice personally, considering how well the rest of his whole act plays out. Lugosi’s Dracula probably has the same amount of screen time and lines as his film rival Van Helsing, played by Edward Van Sloan, and Lugosi’s performance completely eclipses Sloan’s.

The rest of the cast is quite good in this film but I feel like I need to mention and point out Dwight Frye’s amazing portrayal of Dracula’s first victim, Renfield. Frye plays the psychotic character who balances the line of hilarious and genuinely creepy so well it’s remarkable! It’s no wonder that he would go on to play similarly great performances during the next few years in Frankenstein (1931), The Vampire Bat (1933), The Invisible Man (1933), The Crime of Dr. Crespi (1935), and Bride of Frankenstein (1935).

And lastly even though I crapped all over the direction of the film, I want to mention that there are a couple scenes, (and more realistically) shots that I really enjoy. They definetely stick out when they occur though, I don't know if they were suggestions from others or if they were just spur of the moment ideas that really worked out well? Also there are definitely lines that people quote from Dracula that were immortalized through this movie specifically. So that should say something too.

I also want to do a shout out, I was lucky enough to watch a recently “restored” version that Universal just did for their Centennial. They lovingly went through and fixed and cleaned defects in the picture and sound and darkened a lot of the scenes that have lost their original darkness and become foggy. It’s amazing I saw a digital projection of it but I imagine the Blu-ray of it will be just as good of quality. I did a quick search online and couldn’t find it for sale anywhere yet (correct me if I’m wrong?) but when it becomes available I’m definitely going to get myself a copy, and I highly recommend you check it out yourself.

1931’s Dracula is a bit dated, unfortunately it’s parts are better than it’s whole. But there’s still enough here to warrant a watch, especially if you’ve never seen the classic, do yourself a favor and watch this just for Bela Lugosi’s performance if not for anything else. 3/5 stars.

**EDIT 10/15/2012** I knocked this down half a star after watching the original Wolf Man that movie is dated too but holds up better than this one.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: