The Silver Screen Oasis

Have to disagree with you, Joe on the continuities you mention in the "House of . . . " series. The transition from FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN into HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (outside of the Dracula segment) works well, but after that - the segue into HOUSE OF DRACULA . . . well, while entertaining, to me it just falls into a total suspension of disbelief that just doesn't cut it. Silver bullet-fired-into the heart Larry Talbot showing up at Dr. Edleman's clinic hale and hearty and dressed in a neat suit, soon to be followed by Count Dracula of a sudden likewise alive and seeking a cure to his vampirism. Again, the screenwriters seem to have gotten lazy (though God knows how they could have explained Talbot's recovery from the ultimate kill to a werewolf). Perhaps I'm being too critical and analytical, but that is where I enjoyed the Hammer Dracula and Frankenstein films (to a point). There was always a logical (as best as there could be one) explanation for the revival or return of the character. I recall half the fun I had as a lad seeing these films was trying to figure out how Hammer would bring ol' Drac back to life and where Frankenstein's next adventures would take him.

BTW: Apparently Hammer wanted to make a direct sequel to Chris Lee's THE MUMMY, a la Dracula, but Lee was adamant he would never again don the mummy's gauze. Besides the uncomfortableness of the costume, Lee supposedly sustained a fair amount of physical discomforts and injuries in the role.

The continuity of Hammer's Frankenstein saga does go a bit awry with THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN - completely ignoring the first two movies in the series. And, it always puzzled me why Peter Cushing, in FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (his last outing as the Baron), was required to wear a blonde, curly toupee. According to a Wikipedia article I've just read he designed it himself (but later regretted it)!

Yeah, I never could accept EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN as part of the continuing series. It just didn't fit in. And just when did the Baron create the Kiwi Kingston monster? I look at it as a strange separate entity.

And yes, that bizarre wig design for FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL. Why Cushing would have included that in the role is a mystery. Actually that final installment is a mystery. The series would have ended nicely with FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED.

Yes, I agree. Although it's a fair while since I saw it, FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED is quite a pleasing little entry in the series, with some good shock moments early on.

Hammer's Baron Frankenstein is a complete revision of the original character (brought splendidly to life by Peter Cushing). For my money Colin Clive presents an equally valid interpretation of the character in Universal's original FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. There's something compelling about Clive that I like.

Well, while Cushing's Frankenstein is cool and obsessed, Clive's character is neurotic and obsessed. Two different interpretations. I like both but still give the nod to Peter.

Interesting how Cushing played the variations on the character. IN CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN he was utterly ruthless; less so in REVENGE; almost heroic in EVIL; almost a nice guy in CREATED WOMAN; back to total ruthlessness in MUST BE DESTROYED; and again of a gentler nature in THE MONSTER FROM HELL.

And he pulls each off with his usual versatility. Just a wonderful actor.

Western Guy wrote:Yeah, I never could accept EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN as part of the continuing series. It just didn't fit in. And just when did the Baron create the Kiwi Kingston monster? I look at it as a strange separate entity.

I just saw this movie not less a year ago and I totally agree with you that I never, ever accept this movie as a part of the continuing series because I felt that this movie was so out of place during the time it was made.

I won't challenge your points about EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN and serial continuity, but I like the movie in its own right. I find it exciting and atmospheric.

I remember when I was a young'un and totally into Hammer, EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN was the one studio production I wanted to see most - mainly because of that neat semi-Karloff-type monster. So, like Red River, it isn't a bad film; it's entertaining and has its own charm; almost a SON OF FRANKENSTEIN-like plotline. Just seems a weird departure from what was supposed to be a series.

Colin Clive ". . . neurotic and obsessed." - I'd agree with that. How about Basil Rathbone as Wolf von Frankenstein, W.G.? Rathbone's performance always struck me as a little over-ripe, just a bit too florid.

Yes, good call, Joe. Although I'm a huge fan of Rathbone, he really does overdo it in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. At moments, in fact, he's almost embarrassingly bad. Fortunately his near-hysterics are nicely counterbalanced by the magnificent Lionel Atwill. Still, nothing is as irritating in that film as the annoying Donnie Dunagan.

"Well helllooo . . . "

Aw - the poor wee mite! In retrospect the movie seems to be a blueprint for the developement (or deterioration!) of the series. Karloff's monster, at times, seems to serve as a mere prop. And that battery of tests he's subjected to, wherein it's discovered he's the next best thing to George Reeves and virtually immortal!

RedRiver wrote:I won't challenge your points about EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN and serial continuity, but I like the movie in its own right. I find it exciting and atmospheric.

Evil of Frankenstein is very exciting film and it's has it's moments too. But, it was very different and most totally unique in a surreal sense in a way.

Very true, Joe, how Karloff's monster in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN does almost come across as a prop. Truth be told, Lugosi's Ygor really steals the film and as I've maintained he truly deserved an Oscar nomination for his performance. His Ygor is miles away from Dracula or the other characters he portrayed during the 1930s. It proves conclusively that Lugosi could act. And also that his talents were worthy of a comeback following that dry spell he endured from 1937 onward. But back to the Frankenstein monster. Following the next outing: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN, he became little more than a lumbering afterthought. He served a bit of a purpose in FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, but after Glenn Strange took over the part (and personally I felt Strange's incarnation of the creature was the most frightening of all), the monster really had little to do except arise from the lab table for his moments of destruction. A far cry from Karloff's interpretation.

W.G., Ditto re: Strange's incarnation of the creature being ". . . the most frightening of all"