Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Mummy (2017)

 On to the first proper review for this year.... and oh, God, I have to actually go into the history of this, aren't I? I'll make it quick. I find corporate bullshit like this far less interesting to write about. 

   So, as many of you know, Boris Karloff's The Mummy spawned a reboot in 1999, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. It was an action adventure film rather than a straight forward horror film, but it was successful enough to spawn two sequels and a number of spin-offs. However, as it gradually lost steam, Universal decided that a reboot was necessary, cancelling a fourth film with Fraser. They announced the reboot in 2012, and following the example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was decided that it would be the centerpiece of a new "Cinematic Universe". After cycling through writers and directors, eventually, hack screenwriter Alex Kurtzmann (whose credits read like a cinematic rap sheet) was tapped to lead the "Dark Universe" and eventually to direct the new Mummy. However, he would be one of many screenwriters, including frequent partner and fellow hack Robert Orci and (of all people) David Koepp, writer of Jurassic Park, Spider-Man,... Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,.... Mortdecai.... Anyway, Tom Cruise was cast, and by most accounts, took over production, controlled every part of it, and basically made himself the bigger star over the titular mummy (played by Algerian French actress Sofia Boutella, cast after her star turning role in Kingsman.) The film was a gigantic flop, and brought the end to the nascent "Dark Universe". The next film, a remake of The Invisible Man, was unconnected to the Dark Universe, perhaps for the better. 

    So, in this film about ancient Egypt, we start in England. During the 13th Century. During a funeral for a crusader. Then to modern day London where Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe, and yes, it means exactly what you think it means) digs up the corpse. What has to do with the rest of the film, I'm not sure, but then we get the story of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), her bloodlust on her way to power, her deal with the God of "Death" Set (Set was actually the god of deserts, Osiris was the god of death. How do you screw up such a basic piece of research?) and how she was mummified alive and transported to Iraq. There, her tomb is uncovered by Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson, whose presence is extremely distracting), a pair of ... I'm actually not entirely sure, deserters? special ops?... anyway, they report it to their commanding officer (Courtney B. Vance) and by extension, archeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis). They excauvate the ruins, and unleash the titular mummy, who decides to... again, not clear on this, but apparently it motivates her to unleash supernatural wackiness upon the world. 

   Good stuff, good stuff.... Sofia Boutella is always a compelling presence, and for the limited role she's given here, she does the very best she can (you want a good performance, watch the first Kingsman or Atomic Blonde for that). Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise, for good or ill. Russell Crowe is mildly entertaining, since he's just decided to go hammy with the role. 

    This was very badly written, for the first really glaringly awful thing. The plot changes at least three times over the course of the film, and even then, it's really hard to tell what's going on. Why any of this is happening, what any of it signifies, and why should the audience care. I was baffled throughout this film, wondering what the hell was going on. The motivations of the titular Mummy are the biggest flaw, in that she doesn't have any. Her original plan was laid out and foiled in the opening, so her resurrection makes little sense, and she has no reason to do anything. Why does she conjure this supernatural menace? What's her endgoal? The ending is terrible, too, especially its non-climax and bizarre resolution that doesn't explain anything. I suppose it was meant to set up the "Dark Universe", but it was poorly done. As was the SHIELD counterpart Prodigium, which was deeply uninteresting and puts the film's pacing to a stonecold halt. As an intro to the "Dark Universe", it's really bad, and makes you actively avoid any future installments if they're this blatantly commericial. It also has terrible special effects combined with terrible cinematography. The result is a blur of action just vomited onto the screen, especially the action scenes, which are incomprehensible. 

    This was bad. Really, really bad. Bad in a distinctly uninteresting, completely predictable kind of way. There's no ironic enjoyment or unintentional fun. It's really dull and boring when it doesn't actively insult your intelligence. Frankly, you're better off watching the recent Invisible Man remake over this, since that worked on a individual level. This should probably be only seen as an example of how not to make a cinematic universe. (well, this and the DCEU.)

    Onto stuff I actually have interest in, we return to Larry Cohen next time with Because God Told Me To.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror: Creature from the Black Lagoon

    The story of this film begins with, of all things, Citizen Kane. William Alland, a good friend of Orson Welles, played the role of the reporter investigating Kane in the film, making him the point of view character. At a party celebrating that film, he met Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, who had worked with filmmakers like Howard Hawks and John Huston. Figueroa told the story of a fishman in the Amazon who would come to villages once a year, steal women, and vanish. The idea stuck with Alland as he became a major producer of science fiction films in the 50's, including It Came from Outer Space, with a script from Harry Essex (based on a story treatment by Ray Bradbury) and directed by actor-turned-director Jack Arnold. Alland eventually wrote down the idea, which was expanded into a treatment and later script by Maurice Zimm, Essex and Arthur Ross. The story mostly took its cues from Beauty and the Beast as well as King Kong. The creature's legendary costume was designed by Milicent Patrick, who had been one of the first female animators at Disney before coming to Universal as part of their special effects and make-up department. Unfortunately, her assistant Bud Westmore became jealous, and overshadowed her contributions to the Gil-Man design, obscuring her role for decades. Released in 1954, it is something of a staple for the science fiction horror genre. Guillermo del Toro released his riff on the film with The Shape of Water in 2017, earning the Academy Award in the process. 

      After an intro describing evolution, basically, the film opens with the discovery of a strange fossil in the Amazon. A large claw fossil to be exact. (They could resurrect it at Pewter City if they wanted.) The discoverer, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) soon brings in marine biologist Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), and persuades his boss, Mark Williams (Richard Denning) to tag along. Sure enough, a real fish creature is swimming around nearby, and takes a particular liking to David's girlfriend Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams), who is tagging along. 

      The "Gill-Man" has an excellent, very monstrous look to it, thanks to Patrick's design. It helps sell the creature as a real creature and not just a guy in a costume (which it still does appear to be). Ben Chapman also does very well conveying the physicality of the creature as a fish who learned how to walk upright, basically. The sets, especially the caves and parts of the jungle is very well done, and I did like that they did attempt (however tenuous) to tie this to the idea of evolution. I did like that they took the main emotional core of King Kong (the "Beauty and the Beast" aspect) and spun it around in a different setting

      Like many of these films, after a good first act and a great third act, it has a really slow second act. It just sort of builds a lot of tension and we don't see a lot of Gill-Man. I drifted during this part. Luckily, as I said, it manages to pick up during the third act and does its iconic scene , which still holds up. 

     The biggest film that hangs over this one is The Shape of Water. Del Toro discusssed how that film was inspired by his sympathy towards the monster in this film. Honestly, I do see it. The creature is ultimately sympathetic, like Frankenstein, but is besieged by colonial forces beyond its control. There's a certain tragedy to its death at the very end. For that alone, I recommend this film. That, and it's still a pretty fun film. 

     Alright, after three months and many cancellations, we're finally at the end of this with an unorthodox choice (and not technically originally a Universal film, but bare with me): Psycho.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Wolfman

    (So,  my anxiety got particularly bad since writing the last one, I was unable to write the planned entries I had intended, or see the films. It's been hard and its almost October. Thus, I've decided to just skip to the last three major films in this franchise to finish off. I may get to the sequels and spin-offs in later entries. With that...)

    This film was based on the experiences of its screenwriter Curt Siodmak. A minor writer and filmmaker in Germany, he was forced to flee when the Nazis came to power due to his Jewish heritage. He channeled the shock of this sudden chaos into a story about a relatively normal man who becomes a werewolf. Siodmak invented many werewolf myths for the film, including the poem cited in the film and was the first to depict a relatively uncommon myth about the werewolf being affected by a silver bullet. Directing the film was actor-turned-director George Waggner. The role of the werewolf (with make-up once again by Jack P. Pierce, reusing the unused make-up from Werewolf of London) was considered for stars Bela Lugosi (who ultimately appears in the film as "Bela", which must've been hard for him to remember) and Boris Karloff before going to Lon Chaney, Jr. Born Creighton Chaney, he was the son of Lon Chaney, Universal's silent era star, who, both directly and indirectly helped pave the way for the Universal Monsters. Chaney resented the name change, forced on him by Universal, commenting that he was proud of the name "Lon Chaney", but not "Lon Chaney, Jr." Chaney would have difficulties in the production of this film, corraling with lead actress Evelyn Ankers and suffering through a long make-up sequence. However, with the major success of the film (one of the biggest films of 1941), Chaney would go on to portray the character six more times, the only actor to portray the same character in all his appearances.

    Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) returns to his father John's (Claude Rains)  estate after the death of his brother. Talbot, an engineer, soon becomes acquainted with Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), owner of an antiques shop. Gwen tells Talbot of a very interesting poem about the werewolf: "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". Sure enough, when Larry, Gwen, and Gwen's friend Jenny (Fay Helm) go for a forest jaunt, they find an old Gypsy woman (Maria Ouspenskaya) and her son Bela (Bela... Lugosi), and are attacked by a strange wolf creature. Larry is bitten attempting to save Jenny (who is killed). When the police investigate, the gypsy woman suddenly claims that the Wolf was in fact Bela, and that Larry might have... urges. 

     The make-up in the film is better than the last film. Definitely looks like a human-wolf hybrid, and there is a certain menace to the character. Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't necessarily do well when he has to be Larry Talbot, but when he's the wolfman, his physicality and viciousness help sell that particular character. The mysticism and tension in the film helps keep the film at least somewhat interesting throughout. Overall, the kills are better done, especially with the ambiguity of it. 

    As said before, Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't really do well when in human form. He has this forced normal affectation to him that's a bit distracting and he looks like an extra and not the lead of the film. Perhaps his other appearances fix this, but he struggles in this role. The second act tends to drag and despite being 70 minutes, it does feel very long. 

     I enjoyed this more than London. Definitely worth a watch for the tensions and the origins of many current werewolf myths and legends, and just for the fun of seeing effectively a Code-era slasher film (so, no blood). It's not my favorite, but it was definitely a lot of fun. 

    So, yeah, I'm just going to skip forward into the last technical Universal Monster with Creature from the Black Lagoon.  

(Cororna)- Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Werewolf of London

    Werewolves were a major part of European folklore dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Myths around lycanthropy vary across regions, but the prevalence of wolves in Europe prior to mass hunting (and possibly medical conditions like porphyria and hypertrichosis) lead to myths of humans becoming wolves becoming a common motif. The specifics were refined from other incidents (such as the 18th century cryptid Beast of Gévaudan, killed by a silver bullet). With the colonization of the Americas by both the Norse and later the rest of Europe, lycanthropy would even spread to some native American cultures, with the most notable being the skin-walker of Navajo myth, who were witches who could change shape into various animals, including wolves. The first werewolf film, The Werewolf from 1913, (now lost) was about a Navajo skin-walker. There was no literary books on werewolves until 1933, when Guy Endore's The Werewolf of Paris explored a man inflicted with lycanthropy as he stumbles through the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. This film is, in fact, not an adaptation of that book. It's instead an original story by Robert Harris, going through several screenwriters. Not much on the inspiration or impetus for the film, though some sources cite this as a response to Paramount's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Many of the modern werewolf myths (biting to spread lycanthropy and turning under a full moon), come from this film. Jack Pierece's initial make-up was rejected when star Henry Hull noted that the characters should be able to recognize the protagonist as the werewolf. It has had a mixed reception, both then and now. 

    Botanist Dr. Wildfried Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet (where they apparently speak a lot of Cantonese), searching for a rare mariphasa flower He has a brief encounter with Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland, in yellowface)  When he sees the flowers, a mysterious creature bites him. Glendon takes the plant back to merry old England, where he lives and cultivates the plant in the home he shares with wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). Yogami warns that the plant is a potential cure if you're bitten by a werewolf. Glendon is incredulous, until he starts becoming more violent. 

    The make-up is very well done, with a very intimidating look to it. It feels like a real animalistic creature is on screen. Henry Hull does well in his performance, giving the creature some degree of menace and terror. I liked the shadows. The climax and transformation sequences are very well done. 

    Yeah, the fact that the Van Helsing role is played by an actor in yellowface is very distracting. The fact that it's Warner Oland, who also did Fu Manchu makes it equally uncomfortable. It's easily the biggest part of the film that has dated it significantly. Also not helping is the story just sort of grands until the climax of the film. Not a lot happens during it, and it's a bit dull. 

     As a historical document, it's probably worth watching as effectively the originator of the modern werewolf movie. As a film, it's mostly just okay. I feel it may be notable as just a trial run for the first very big werewolf film, which we will cover soon enough. 

    Well, hopefully I can expediate the end of this, so tune in next time for an overview of some of the other Universal monster movies released during the 1930's.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Bride of Frankenstein

    The 1931 Frankenstein film was very different from Mary Shelley's novel, removing, among other changes, a subplot where the monster forces Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate, which the latter complies with, until he doesn't. This would form the basis for the sequel to the film, which was conceived during the previews of the first film. Indeed, the ending was changed to have Dr. Frankenstein live specifically so that he could return for a sequel. Initially, however, James Whale didn't want to do a sequel, having had a falling out with Boris Karloff during the production of the film The Old Dark House and feeling that he had done all he could with the concept. Ultimately, he agreed to make the film in exchange for Universal backing his project One More River. Whale was dissatisfied by the scripts offered, including a treatment by Robert Florey, and gave the script to John L. Balderston. Balderston was the one who centered the film on the subplot, making it about the "Bride of Frankenstein" and even wrote a prologue with Mary Shelley herself. Whale, still dissatisfied, pushed the script to William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson, who polished the final script. Karloff and Colin Clive returned, with Valerie Hobson replacing Mae Clarke in the role of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Whale's old friend Ernest Thesiger plays the villain Dr. Pretorius. In the titular role of the Bride was Elsa Lancaster. Born to a bohemian artistic family in London, Lancaster studied dance in Paris under Isadora Duncan, before returning to England and starting a number of venues to pursue theatre and cabaret. Eventually, she started appearing in small scale productions in Britain with her husband Charles Laughton, eventually accompanying him to Hollywood. Laughton managed to carve out a niche for himself, including in The Old Dark House. She had returned to London when Whale offered her the role. She based her signature hiss on swans in Regent's Park, London. Jack P. Pierce and Kenneth Strickfadden return in their roles, with Pierce's original make-up modified slightly to allow the monster to speak (an element Karloff was vehemently against).  Pierce also designed the Bride with Whale, basing it off the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. A very young Billy Barty was prominently featured before his scenes were cut. Released on April 20th, 1935, the film would garner critical acclaim, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made. 

    The film begins with a prologue featuring Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Elsa Lancaster) stuck in Byron's villa in Switzerland during a thunderstorm in 1815. Byron and Shelley praise Mary's tale of Frankenstein, and ask that she continue with the story. She agrees, and begins the story: shortly after the events of the first film, Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) emerges from the wreckage of the windmill burned in the original and begins to wander. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) recovers back in the village with his bride Elizabeth (Valerie Dobson) by his side. They're approached by Frankenstein's old teacher Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who really wants Frankenstein to help him with his own life creation experiments. Eventually, as Frankenstein tries to survive paranoid villagers (including befriending a hermit (OP Heggie)), Pretorius' begins his grandiose scheme: To create a bride. For the Monster. 

    Again, the highlight of the film is Karloff's performance. There's a lot more instances of his physicality and his innocence, conveyed well by Karloff's own movement. For all his opposition to the monster talking, he manages to do the voice well, making that aspect of the character as iconic as it is. Elsa Lancaster does well in her brief appearances as both Mary Shelley and the Bride. Her performance at the end is really good, especially at showing the fear that the creation has at the world around her. Her hissing is very precise, and she makes an impression even though she only appears in the last ten minutes. Dr. Pretorius is very fun in his giddiness, the way Claude Rains was in Invisible Man. I like that the film continues to show the monster as sympathetic, continually despised and misunderstood despite only making mistakes. It really makes the film tragic, as the monster is rejected by all aspects of society, including his creator, the villagers, and even the bride crafted specifically for him. There's been speculation of a queer subtext, given the director and some of the actors and the camp factor of the film. Personally, I think if there is such a subtext, it's in the Creature being besieged by a society that mistrusts and hates him, finding solace only in the relationship he forges with the Blind Hermit. 

    The opening is a little slow, and a bit confusing, especially when Dr. Pretorius arrives and shows the homunculi he created. While the make-up in this film is iconic, I kind of prefer the ones from the original. It looked a lot more natural and this makes Karloff's face look bloated. It doesn't feel right. 

     As with the first one, this is something of a quintessential American horror movie or even quintessential American film. Beyond the horror genre, this has been homaged or referenced so many times, that it's hard to not to at least know of its existence. Even Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein utilizes the imagery and menace that this film had pioneered. In that sense, it's almost required viewing for that reason. Helps that it is really, really good in its own right. 

    I feared this would happen. Yes, unfortunately, I have to take this into September. Like everyone else, it's just been a hard year for me, and writing these tends to be a more intensive form because of the research. Hopefully, I will be able to finish by mid-September. Anyway, next time, we will look at Werewolf of London. 

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Frankenstein

     Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus needs no introduction. Not its origins in the electric experiments conducted by Luigi Galvani, showing that electricity can induce movement in dead limbs, nor the real Castle Frankenstein, where alchemist  Johann Conrad Dippel did experiments on human bodies. Not how Shelley conceived it while stuck in a Swiss cabin with future husband Percy and poet Lord Byron. Nor its place as the first work of modern science fiction and horror. I suppose let's begin with adaptations. Frankenstein started being adapted into plays during Shelley's lifetime, with 1823's Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein being the first, followed by The Man and the Monster! in 1826 and Frankenstein; Or The Model Man in 1849. In 1887, a musical adaptation, Frankenstein, or The Vampire's Victim was made. As film came into prominence, film adaptations also followed. In 1910, J. Searle Dawley wrote and directed the first, a short adaptation for Thomas Edison and his film studio. Life without Soul in 1915 and Italian adaptation The Monster of Frankenstein  (both lost) followed. The story of this film begins in 1924, with another stage adaptation by British playwright Peggy Webling, commissioned by Hamilton Deane, who made the stage adaptation of Dracula made into the 1931 film. Notably, the monster (unnamed in the Shelley novel) was named Frankenstein after its creator. With Dracula's towering success, Universal purchased the rights to John L. Balderston's (who also produced the successful Broadway version of Deane's Dracula) unproduced Broadway version of Webling's play. (Ultimately, said version never made it to stage). Bela Lugosi originally wanted to be Victor Frankenstein, but was relegated to being the monster. In the original version with director Robert Florey at the helm, Lugosi's monster would be simple killing machine, a charaterization Lugosi resented and eventually led to his and Florey's ouster. In their place was  James Whale  a successful British stage director, who had recently made the transition to film as director and an unknown minor character actor named Boris Karloff as the monster. Boris Karloff, despite the name, was not in fact another Eastern European refugee. In fact, he was an Englishman, born William Henry Pratt, from a diplomatic family (his maternal great aunt was Anna Leonowens, most famous for being the subject of The King and I). Pratt would change his name to Boris Karloff when he became an actor to avoid embarrassing his family (Accounts vary on where he got the name). After years in Canadian and American acting troupes, he would eventually make his way to Hollywood, where his relatively darker skin complexion (owing to some Indian ancestry) would cast him in minor ethnic roles throughout the silent era. Whale purportedly cast Karloff because of his intimidating size. The supporting cast was rounded out: Colin Clive (who had appeared in Whale's production of the play as Journey's End and it's 1930 adaptation) as Henry (not Victor) Frankenstein, Mae Clarke (who appeared opposite James Cagney in The Public Enemy earlier that year) as Henry's love interest Elizabeth Lavenza, and Dracula's Edward van Sloan and Dwight Frye as Dr. Frankenstein's mentor Dr. Waldman and his hunchback assistant Fritz respectively. Set designer Kenneth Strickfaden would design the iconic set describing the creature's creation (including a Tesla coil from none other than Nikola Tesla himself), which was used in later films. The iconic make-up of the creature was done by Jack P. Pierce, and was so evocative that Universal trademarked it (which it still holds) and has been associated with the character since. Released on November 21st, 1931, Frankenstein would be a commercial and critical success, and is now regarded as an iconic piece of American cinema. 

    In some nondescript place in Central Europe in some nondescript time, Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) dig up recently buried corpses for a project to create a living being from the parts of dead bodies, but needs a brain. He sends Fritz to steal a healthy brain from his teacher Dr. Waldman (Edward van Sloan), but Fritz screws up and brings a criminal brain meant for comparison. Henry's fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and friend Victor Mortiz (John Boles), along with Dr. Waldman, find Henry about to perform his act: using lightning to bring his Creature (Boris Karloff) to life...

    The best thing about the film definitely is Karloff as the creature. The performance is incredible. He manages to have unique mannerisms, the way he moves his arms, his expressions, his grunts, the way he moves, all helps create a very convincing portrayal of the monster as very sympathetic and misunderstood. He can be intimidating, but the film shows very well how the monster is constantly besieged and misunderstood by people. Karloff's performance as the Monster really makes the film work in the way it intend, and is really the main thing that is most memorable, especially the iconic scene  with the little girl. Not to say the rest of the film is very well done. Strickfaden's sets are very meticulous, with a German impressionist look to the architecture and a very haunting look to the electrical equipment in Dr. Frankenstein's office. The cinematography is also very well done, with some very well done long shots and overviews which increase the drama of each scene. I liked that the film took full advantage of its relatively short running time and  told the story it intended to tell well, and with very few interruptions. 

     That said, there were some scenes towards the end celebrating Frankenstein and Elizabeth's wedding, that felt a bit like padding. Or was the studio trying to do big celebration scenes like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It ultimately felt superfluous except to establish the crowd which later hunts down Frankenstein. The short length probably makes this worse. And like Dracula, the film just sort of stops rather than have a proper conclusion, though this at least feels like the film should've ended at this point. 

     One might call this the quitessential American horror film. Every horror film that followed either followed at least parts of the precedents it set or rejected it. Even early New Horror film Targets relied on the intimidating power of Boris Karloff's performance. So, I think it's worth a watch on that ground. It's also really quite good and affecting in its own right, with the stand out being Karloff's performance and the large scope of the story. So, it's definitely worth a watch. 

    Next comes the first original property with The Mummy. 

Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc