Frankenstein: Complete Legacy Collection (1931-48) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Disc 1 - Frankenstein:

• The Frankenstein Files: How Hollywood Made a Monster

• Karloff: The Gentle Monster

• Monster Tracks

• Universal Horror

• Frankenstein Archives

• Boo! A Short Film

• Feature Commentary with Film Historian Rudy Behlmer

• Feature Commentary with Historian Sir Christopher Frayling

• Trailer Gallery

• 100 Years of Universal: Restoring the Classics

• My Scenes

Disc 2 - The Bride of Frankenstein:

• She's Alive! Creating The Bride of Frankenstein

• The Bride of Frankenstein Archive

• Feature Commentary with Scott MacQueen

• Trailer Gallery

• 100 Years of Universal: Restoring the Classics

• My Scenes

Disc 3 - The Ghost of Frankenstein:

• The Ghost of Frankenstein Theatrical Trailer

Disc 4 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man:

• Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man Theatrical Trailer

Disc 4 - House of Frankenstein:

• House of Frankenstein Theatrical Trailer

Disc 4 - House of Dracula:

• House of Dracula Theatrical Trailer

Disc 5 - Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein:

• Abbott and Costello Meet the Monsters

• Theatrical Trailer

• Feature Commentary with Film Historian Gregory W. Mank

• 100 Years of Universal: The Lot

• 100 Years at Universal: Unforgettable Characters
  
  The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.
  
  CLICK HERE TO PREORDER

 

[John Morgan]

What happened to SON OF FRANKENSTEIN?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The Amazon specs don't list SON OF FRANKENSTEIN.

I went to Universal's press site and they DO list it as one of the included titles.

So, yes, SON is included.

 

[Mike2001]

I see a text block where I should see the pre-order widget. Also in the Wolfman pre-order thread. I'll hold off on my pre-order until fixed.

By the way, if we use the widget to pre-order a title like the Frankenstein set and then add on the Wolfman set at Amazon, do you guys get credit for both sales or should we come back and use the second widget for the second order? Thx.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Corrected Preorder link:

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I see a text block where I should see the pre-order widget. Also in the Wolfman pre-order thread. I'll hold off on my pre-order until fixed.

By the way, if we use the widget to pre-order a title like the Frankenstein set and then add on the Wolfman set at Amazon, do you guys get credit for both sales or should we come back and use the second widget for the second order? Thx.

Mike,

First of all, thank you so much for waiting for me to fix the links. They are now fixed....somewhat. Not sure why we had problems with these.

Second of all, to answer your question, once you use one of our links to go to Amazon, anything you purchase within that one shopping session gets credited to us. THANK YOU.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

One reason why these restorations are so amazing, they've replicated the original theatrical timing for the first time in more than six decades!

 

[Alan Tully]

It does seem a bit odd that there's been so few online reviews for this great set.

 

[JeffT.]

Maybe because the set contains 8 films and special material it will take time for some ambitious (and thorough) online blu-ray reviewer to accurately access everything.

It's interesting that we bantered about individual favoured Frankenstein films for (possible) blu-ray release and Universal Studios Home Entertainment went ahead and did the entire series. Saves a lot of argument and disappointment that way.

That little boy in the Dracula cape is very astute in his observation about FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943). The make-up job on Bela Lugosi is terrible and his disappointing Frankenstein Monster somewhat spoils things. In THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) they come up with a more impressively formidable looking Frankenstein Monster but he's given very little to do except lie down on the operating table for the better part of the film.

After the epic SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) it was pretty much downhill anyway for the Frankenstein Monster until ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948).

Jeff T.

 

[aPhil]

I like all of the 8 Universal Frankenstein's despite their faults,
but
I differ with most people on the Lugosi as the Monster issue.

To be the oddball again, I like Bela Lugosi as the Frankenstein Monster,
and I so wish there were more of him in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" --

When I see the film now and get a sense of what Bela was trying to achieve
(before it was cut and abandoned)
I think he could have been excellent.

Don't get me wrong --
Much of Curt Siodmak's dialogue was so outrageous that most of it had to go,
but the excessive surgery of totally eliminating any character from the now Ygor-brained Monster
robbed
all the following films of any reason for continuing with the Creature for anything other than a mindless brute.

The Monster was reduced to being a placeholder on a list of Monsters.

I would rather have had Bela Lugosi play both Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster in "House of Frankenstein,"
as the two characters never met in that film --
It would have made perfect continuity.

As much as I like Glenn Strange, and I think he gave as much as the screenplays allowed,
his Monster always looked a bit more like a large clown to me --

I regret that we never saw the passion
(with Ygor's brain, more for bad and no passion for good or to be accepted)
in the Monster once the Monster Rally movies became the norm.

 

[JeffT.]

If (the great) Bela Lugosi hadn't been (wisely) recruited for ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) then it wouldn't be the comedy-horror masterpiece that it is to be sure.
''
However in appearance I (honestly) don't think that he's nearly as impressive as the Glenn Strange Frankenstein Monster was.

Glenn was a strapping 6 foot 3 inches in height (at least). He didn't need any physical padding whatsoever. He certainly didn't require a stuntman to cover for him. He facially embodied what the role demanded: A (literal) living dead appearance.

Jack Pierce himself even said that Glenn Strange was more closer to what he had in mind when he first conceived of the Frankenstein Monster's overall look.

I don't want to get crude here but the muscularly powerful Glenn Strange monster could mightily grab a hold of the frail looking Bela Frankenstein and easily tear him in half along the dotted line.

For me this is this precisely the problem with both Lon Chaney, Jr. and Bela Lugosi in the part. Their faces are (far) too well fed looking. These guys both have fat cheeks! Which I hate. Especially Lon Chaney, Jr. who was very overweight and bloated looking in his earlier 1940s Universal horror pictures.

As far as Bela portraying Dracula in THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) this is easily dispelled by seeing him in THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1943) where the aging Hungarian (unfortunately) is showing his years (early 60s).

In ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) heavy white make-up and a black hair dye job was clearly in evidence and skillfully employed. I (honestly) don't think that this would have been considered for HOUSE.

If there had to be a replacement than John Carradine more than amply filled the bill here.

Mr. Carradine was an accomplished screen actor. In many ways more distinguished than Bela Lugosi ever was in films. In HOUSE he (satisfactorily) gave the part all the dramatic flourish and stylish theatrics that was required. He was a younger man who was made to look more mature. He had a handsomely lean, cadaverous look to him. The penetrating blue eyes, the tall stature, the works. He really looks like Brahm Stoker's incarnation of the character brought to life on the motion picture screen.

He did a tremendous job as the Vampire King.

And make no mistake about it John Carradine had a very high regard for both Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi whom he saluted as being very fine actors in their own right. So there was absolutely no conceit on his part in having been assigned the role.

Jeff T.

 

[aPhil]

JeffT,

I think the image that people often have of Bela is the frail man from "Bride of the Monster" and "The Black Sleep."

In 1942,
despite his physical pains,
when "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" was filmed, Bela (at 60) was still a tall and strong looking individual.

Look at later films like "Zombies on Broadway" where he towers over the other players.
Look at how he has to hunch over in order to seem the lesser & weaker to Boris Karloff in "The Body Snatcher."

At that time in history, Lugosi was at least 2 inches taller than Karloff and within an inch of Lon Chaney Jr.

Again, I like Glenn Strange, and if brute force is what we want, then, yes he is the bigger man.
Of course, by that standard we might prefer Primo Carnera.

I will note that in the new Blu-ray of "House of Frankestein," there are a few shots that do not seem to be Glenn Strange.
Not a statement of fact as yet, but I will put in the disc and specify a couple times that I believe we have a double.

 

[JeffT.]

Carefully examine this picture above. Everyone is rightly portraying the character that they were meant to play.

Well, I'm (genuinely) glad to see such loyalty toward Bela Lugosi and I'm certainly not going to discourage it.

FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN (1943) is a very good movie but not as a Frankenstein film. For many of us (and there are a lot) the Monster is a big letdown in it.

They were pursuing the "idiot" idea from THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942) of Igor's brain now in the Monster's noggin and then at the last moment completely abandoned it making Bela's casting totally pointless. All the Monster's dialogue was removed and what's left really isn't very impressive at all.

If Igor was indeed now inhabiting the Monster's body he wouldn't sound like Igor (with a broken neck and gravelly voice) but talk in the Monster's voice. This is (most) probably what was realized. The concept was totally flawed from the outset!

It (really) pains me because the Wolf Man aspect of the film was superbly handled. It just misses the mark here.

Very unfortunate.

As I said in THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) they got the Monster right but didn't really do anything with it.

In HOUSE there is one (fleeting) scene where a prop dummy was used in a laboratory sequence because of the inherent hazard of the dangerously flashing sparks emitted from the peripheral electrical equipment and the fireworks discharges.

Jeff T.

 

[aPhil]

JeffT

Maybe this should be on another forum page, but I guess the Moderators will let us know.

Anyway, I agree with you far more than I disagree,
and
as I said earlier,
I differ with most people on the Bela Lugosi as the Monster issue.

I love "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" with all its faults, just as I love all the series --
I can't change history, but I do love watching these films. They are beautiful,
and
the new Blu-ray transfers of "The Ghost of Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" probably look better than any new print looked in 1942 and 1943.

Now, as to your comment:
"If Igor was indeed now inhabiting the Monster's body he wouldn't sound like Igor (with a broken neck and gravelly voice) but talk in the Monster's voice." --

Likely part true and part not true:
Voice is likely a product of your anatomy and your voice training and your education
(and the training & education parts involves the brain,
although you really cannot fully overcome your anatomy).

Let's also take into account that the events in "The Ghost of Frankenstein"
are decades after the Monster last spoke in "Bride of Frankenstein,"
and
the old boy had suffered a lot.

Again, as from both "Son of Frankentein" and "The Ghost of Frankenstein,"
the Monster is more aged and damaged.
His energy and mind that he once possessed have suffered a lab explosion and burial in a sulfur pit even before the Ygor brain transplant --
He is no longer the same as he was in the original "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein".

I feel that Bela Lugosi was doing his best to follow the logic of where the Monster would be after the brain transplant of "The Ghost of Frankenstein,"
and it is unfortunate that we will never see that performance.

But, certainly, good science is not necessarily a part of the Universal Monsters heritage --
I can't imagine that a real doctor like Lionel Atwill's Dr. Bohmer would make the blood match error between Ygor & the Monster,
nor that there would not have been a hundred other tests necessary before such an operation.

 

[aPhil]

As to Glenn Strange never having a stunt double, I have my doubts:
My list of exceptions to that rule are here from
"House of Frankentein" --

1.
The obvious one starts at 01:00:22 on the new Blu-ray timeline
(that's 1 hour, 0 minutes, 22 seconds):
Full Shot of the Monster on the table looks to be someone like Gil Perkins or other --

I mention Gil Perkins as people say that he is the person doubling Lugosi in the ice in the previous movie ("Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man"), and this face looks much like that.

Some people say this is a prop dummy. Looks like a real person to me.
Some of the shots on this person include what looks to be rotoscoped electrical sparks.

Shots of the same include
Full Shot of the Monster on the table as the camera dollies-in from 01:01:29 to a Medium Shot at 01:01:36
Full Shot of the Monster on the table again at 01:01:10

2.
This one can be argued, and I can't really put up a defense one way or the other,
but does not look a lot like Glenn:

Full Shot of the Monster behind the ice includes the following on timeline at
00:37:17, 00:37:44

And, MS (Medium Shot) of the Monster behind the ice on timeline at
00:39:27

3.
This shot I would ask Glenn Strange fans to tell me their opinion:

01:08:37 Monster carries Karloff double down the steps
(this shot only, not before or after)

4.
I know actors always claim to do their own stunts even when they do not,
but
I think they may have wanted someone with pyro experience for this shot,
and I think this is someone besides Glenn.
Still, I defer to the Classic Horror Film Experts and the Glenn Strange people for comment.

01:09:05 WS (Wide Shot) with fire & Villagers in the foreground and the Monster with the Karloff double far in the background
(again, this shot, not before or after)


The only one of the series (or single shot) above that I feel certain is not Glenn is Number 1 above.

Of course, we all know that Lon Chaney Jr. doubled Glenn for a shot or 2 in
"Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein"

 

[Race Bannon]

Another weird fact -- I think the script concept when Ygor's brain was supposed to be in Monster was that it also blinded the Monster. It's from Lugosi's performance that we get the iconic image of the Monster walking with his arms out like a Mummy (feeling his way). But I think they also dropped that after filming. Just a curveball for Bela all around.

It's odd that we get the iconic name "Ygor" for Bela's turn (most people remember this name, not Fritz), and some of the Monster's mannerisms from Bela's "blind" performance.

When you combine that with the fact that they never did a Dracula sequel for Bela (an unexplainable fact), it really seams like Lugosi got screwed over by circumstance. Disclosure: I'm a huge Bela Lugosi fan. Moreso than Karloff.

 

[JeffT.]

Bela was very well served in the 1930s by Universal.

He appeared in DRACULA (1931), MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (1932), THE BLACK CAT (1934), THE RAVEN (1935) and THE INVISIBLE RAY (1936).

What differentiates him from Boris Karloff is that Boris was able to secure employment with "other" movie studios in some fairly prestigious films to augment his Universal output. Much more than Bela was able to.

Bela didn't go into the industry with the intent of being exclusively in horror films. The man rightly considered himself to be a "handsome" leading man type and he never really was able to accomplish this ambition. That's where his career tragedy really stemmed from not the success of Boris Karloff per se.

In a way Lon Chaney, Jr. suffered the selfsame dilemma. But Lon was able to secure good starring roles in the 1940s Inner Sanctum film series and they are all well worth-a-look. Especially STRANGE CONFESSION (1945) where Lon atypically portrays a happily married and loving father.

All of us wonder (and lament) when seeing THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) why Bela Lugosi isn't portraying the Vampire King in the film. And there are all kinds of reasons given why he isn't.

When people consider this they're (primarily) thinking about the 1931 Bela Lugosi and not the 1944 Bela Lugosi.

01) At this point-in-time the man had clearly aged.

02) Bela had already dwarfed his screen stature by appearing in all those atrocious 1940s Monogram Pictures.

03) If he was too "busy" at the time of production as alleged they could have easily made concessions here. They could have wrapped his "Dracula" scenes by filming in the night. Or on weekends. The part is very slight to begin with. It probably didn't take more than two days to shoot.

04) Bela Lugosi was no longer under contract with Universal in 1944. They (possibly) just didn't want to go to the extra trouble in securing his services again. As far as they were concerned they were done with him and that was that.

05) Universal Pictures primarily wanted THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) to be a Boris Karloff-Lon Chaney, Jr. vehicle. This is how it was enthusiastically promoted. The studio execs probably felt that having Bela in the cast would have overshadowed this.

06) In retrospect, "commercially" the film wouldn't have been any more successful with Bela in the cast during its original theatrical release. I'm sure that a lot of people went to see this movie assuming that Bela Lugosi was indeed portraying Dracula.

07) The bottom line is if Universal Pictures really wanted Bela in the film they would have gotten him.

I honestly don't know whose idea it was to cast John Carradine as Dracula but if a substitute had to be secured they sure scored right by casting this gentleman.

It just wasn't in the cards for Bela to be in THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944). Which isn't necessarily a great film. I have problems with it too. All those ridiculous brain transplantations intended by Dr. Neimann. This guy really was mad!

But as far as the "voice" is concerned in THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). It comes from the vocal cords. He would sound like the Monster. The reason it was done with Bela's dubbed voice was so the "unsophisticated" movie audience at the time would understand that Igor's mentality now inhabits the Monster's body. They could have at least given Lon Chaney, Jr. the opportunity to mimic Igor's voice. The man amazingly does have all the exacting and appropriate facial expressions and body movements down pat. But I never really liked the idea anyways. Even as a kid.

I like both Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. In some of the films like THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE RAVEN (1935) I'm much more impressed with Bela than I am with Boris. But Boris really outshined Bela in THE INVISIBLE RAY (1936). Boris really had a very good character role in that film.

I would have liked to have seen Bela in the Boris Karloff role in BLACK FRIDAY (1940). This is yet another lament. But as has been critically acknowledged the film overwhelmingly belongs to Stanley Ridges more than either Boris or Bela.

Finally, I do thank our lucky stars that Bela was cast in the prestigious ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948). It's a much better picture than its intended follow up ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE KILLER, BORIS KARLOFF (1949) the latter which apparently wasn't a success at the box office.

Jeff T.

 

[John Sparks]

Check out these links courtesy of Classic Horror Film Board. Also, there's another video that lets you hear what was excised from "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man."

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum...T-OF-FRANKENSTEIN-Trailers-in-HD#.WArnTekzXX4

 

[Race Bannon]

Bela was very well served in the 1930s by Universal.

I disagree. They did not manage the Dracula property as well as they did the Frankenstein property, in the aftermath of Dracula '31. They could have had a second mega-franchise on their hands.

They also didn't pay him enough -- Bela was a terrible businessman and negotiator. He did not make as much as he should have, and Karloff's salaries blew his out of the water. Lugosi chased all those other Grade C films to make a living.

Other than that, I don't have a problem with it -- most of it was screwed over by circumstance. Rue Morgue was Bela's next big shot (and a fair one), and it flopped. Whereas Karloff's Mummy was awesome. That started things on a path where Karloff was the "bankable" one and Lugosi was the one-trick pony.

But I do love those Karloff-Lugosi movies of the 1930's. I like them way more than Karloff's movies without Lugosi. I wish there were Dracula headliners getting released just like they did with Frankenstein.

I do wish Bela Lugosi could know the level of immortality and fandom he achieved. He was from an earlier time, another country, and died before he could see the affirmation that Karloff did.

 

[JeffT.]

What I'm saying is that in the 1930s Boris Karloff during the "first" Hollywood monster cycle (1931-36) really didn't make all that many more films (specifically) at Universal than Bela Lugosi did.

Everyone thinks that's all Universal did was make horror films and that isn't true.

Despite the (apparent) commericial failure of MURDERS OF THE RUE MORGUE (1932) it is a good film and Universal still kept Bela employed but like Boris they typed him in just horror films which limited things.

Bela made his "fortune" in Hollywood but he lived extravagantly while Boris was more conservatively cautious with his earnings. The gentleman invested it wisely.

Boris Karloff was sensitive to what "his" fandom wanted from him. He (well) knew that his audience wanted to see in (mostly) horror films and he always obliged this. Bela (rightly) had other aspirations.

Apparently they were toying with the idea of featuring Bela in DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936) to be directed by James Whale which is unfortunate that this never came to pass but the it still survives as a very fine film nonetheless.

When someone comes here and states point blank that they're not a Boris Karloff fan just how am I expected to respond to this?

I feel that thinking is irrational. You've missed a lot my friend!

Both these gentleman entertained me when I a boy watching their films late night on television. I am grateful to both of them. And Vincent Price, Lon Chaney, Jr., Peter Lorre, Basil Rathone, John Carradine, Claude Rains, Lionel Atwill, George Zucco, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.

Did I miss anybody?

Jeff T.