films in the universal frankenstein series. its only watchable if you ignore the first 3. i dont' expect every frankenstein movie to be a work of art such as "bride of frankenstein" but i much prefer the later frankenstein films such as "frankenstein meets the wolf man" and "abbot and costello meet frankenstein" which are more satisfying trashy fun. this one wasn't that fun.
shareI thought it was good enough. The first three were great though, such success couldn't have lasted forever.
shareI think it's a great little film, not as good as the first three of course, but better than the rest of them. The Monster gets lots of quality screen time, and his rampage when he first enters Dr. Frankenstein's house and kills Kettering is a highlight. Plus there's that cool scene early on where he gets struck by lightning. To me, this film has a lot going for it and is loads of fun.
http://www.bumscorner.com
http://www.myspace.com/porfle
Yeah, this one definitely has a lot going for it. It's loaded with action. I think this is one of the better ones, and it's much more entertaining than "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman," which suffered because Universal edited out all of Bela Lugosi's dialogue.
"Ghost of Frankenstein," meanwhile, doesn't seem disjointed, has as much action as "Bride of Frankenstein," if not more, and is full of dark humor. Lugosi steals the show as Ygor, and the ending when Ygor's brain is transplanted into the monster's skull is great. The OP is way off on this one.
[deleted]
There is a drop in quality with "Ghost Of Frankenstein" compared to the first three Universal films.
shareIt is a step down from the fantastic first 3, but still a fun and worthwhile movie.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum?
even if it wasnt as good as the first three, i still think its a good film. all of the frankenstein sequels faired pretty well. not only do they have the best sequels, but house of frankenstein and a/b meet frankenstein was the best of the monster mash "quaddriligy".
Its's alive! It's alive!
I'd say this is hands down the worst of the Frankenstein films, period. The first two are masterpieces and classics. You could make a good case for Bride of Frankenstein being the best horror/comedy ever, it is at least the best of the Universal horrors. While Whale's absence was sorely felt, Son of Frankenstein was still very fun and enjoyable for a film that was stringing the franchise on.
This was as dull as dishwater. Other than Lugosi's eccentric performance and Evelyn Ankers as one of the better scream queens of these Universal horrors, all there was was a very stale performance of the monster. I love Chaney, The Wolfman is my favorite Universal monster, but he like all non-Karloff monsters is dull to watch and the movie is just about him, a little girl and Igor getting a brain transplant.
I don't know hat an earlier poster meant, but Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is incredibly entertaining. It is more of a Wolf Man movie than a Frankenstein movie and in that context it works with some of the best moments of the 1940s Universal horror. The House movies were trashy schlock but at least they were entertaining. And the last one had Abbot and Costello and was hilarious.
This one was just dead in the water. It is really too bad, because it had a good cast. Oh well.
As with any series of movies, horror or otherwise, the latter ones in the series are critiqued using the earlier ones as a measuring stick. If they are short on or lack anything that the earlier ones had, many people don't just say they weren't as good, they say they are bad. What an unfortunate, thoughtless wording these people use.
Then you have the fact that Boris Karloff was the first to play the monster in this series and he did so for the first 3 movies. Since he was so good in the role and stayed with it for so long, he is used a measuring stick for the other actors who played the monster. Because Karloff put everything into the role that he did, the others are expected to as well. Why? Different actors have different strengths and some actors are better at specific roles than others. It's not even taking into account that storyline-wise, everything that the monster has been through could have effected him emotionally so that he is not as emotive. If I had everything happen to me that happened to him, I would also not be as emotive as I used to be. Same with anyone else. Why should a man who was made up of parts of different bodies and brought to life artificially be any different?
This movie was pretty good, IMO. Bela Lugosi's Ygor and the monster is almost all you need. You only also need a few other characters to help give the movie a plot and help it along. Lionel Atwill's character was good (though not Inspector Krogh good) and essential to the plot. The little girl's role is sort of a throwback to the original movie, despite the different circumstances. I appreciate Lon Chaney playing the monster because it added to his increasingly impressive horror movie legacy. All in all, maybe the film wasn't the best in the series but it's nothing to sneeze at.
My preference is this version so I guess we all have our preferences
Please tell me why you believe the Frankenstein meets the wolf man and Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein are better then this version?
I believe "Ghost ..." is better than "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man." However, I also believe that the latter film would have equaled FMTWM had Universal left in Lugosi's dialogue. As for "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," that stands as its own entity apart from the original films.
share[deleted]
I thought it was equal to Son. I enjoyed it.
I liked it better than the original and Son, personally.
share