Later "Universal Horrors"--consensus?

[ctc]

>the plot sounds surprisingly similar to "Superman Meets the Mole Men"

I don't think that one rips the other. I think it's the case that the plots are pretty generic for both, hence the similarities.

Don C.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, I understand it's a morality play about tolerating others different than you...which is also the theme of the Superman movie with a very similar title, and plot line apparently! I need to see this to know for sure.

Chris

[PNGwynne]

^It's kind of racially charged, for the '50s.

The Mole Men themselves are stodgey after the elegant design of the Gillman.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I have never seen "The Mole Men', but the plot sounds surprisingly similar to "Superman Meets the Mole Men", which I believe came first.

Chris

[danadoll]

I found the Leech Woman to be a pain in the neck , but I've never seen Monster on Campus. Loved the Creature movies, but to me, The Mole Men was kind of iffy. I thoroughly enjoy all the 30s and 40s Universal Monster movies though.

Dana

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Agreed. They sold it, despite the silliness of it all. I mean, the monster wanted the little girl's brain in "Ghost of Frankenstein". WHAT?!? It's nuts, but the performances are sincere, so it works... until you think about it too much.

Chris

[madmarva]

As convoluted, melodramatic and wacky (all the brain swapping stuff) as the scripts got in the later Universal horror films, I admire the professionalism of the actors, directors and crews. They weren't just mailing it in. Their work ethic shows. I think that's why the films - as dated as they are - still hold a certain charm and are still gathering fans so many years later.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I watched Karloff in Val Lewton's "Bedlam" Friday night. A bit slow, but some great performances, and a chilling ending!

Me too Joe. I love Chaney as Dracula in Son of Dracula. He is superior to Carradine in every way. One of the things that I enjoy about the later Universal movies is that the monsters got way more air time.

Son of Dracula is very underrated. Very moody, and the transformation scenes are very nice for the time. Chaney is very intense as the count.
Chris

[HumanWolfman]

love he two House of movies and Son of Drac, and the Mummy ones that were set in Louisiana.

Me too Joe. I love Chaney as Dracula in Son of Dracula. He is superior to Carradine in every way. One of the things that I enjoy about the later Universal movies is that the monsters got way more air time.

[sallie138]

I'm with Madmarva all the way. Those Val Lewton films are mindblowing. I Walked with a Zombie even had legit Haitan terminology and culture in it. Class act.

[Earth 2 Chris]

There's actually a whole series of books. I think three or four novels that continue that story line. I've got them all but never got around to reading them. I looked up the Return of the Wolfman paperback on Amazon and about p*ssed myself when I saw the asking prices. Didn't realize there was that kind of demand. Perhaps they should do another printing?

I've heard Rovin's book is really well done and captures the flavor of the Universal films. On the other hand, the subsequent Dark Horse sequels seem to get panned quite a bit, for mucking with the history and adding too much gore and nastiness. I haven't read any of them yet, so I'm just going by folks on the UMA board.

Chris

[hedrap]

I love all the sequels.

Revenge of the Creature is fantastic.

Back in the 80's, they were attempting to remake Creature for the "new 3D". That remake eventually ended up as Jaws 3D, which is why it has almost the exact same storyline as Revenge.

[Bruce Banner]

Watched "Wayne and Shuster Take an Affectionate Look at the Monsters" the other day, an old CBC show from 1965.
An interesting and light-hearted condensed history of the Universal Monsters and other movies.

[MIB41]

When I think of the Universal horror films I think of two chapters. The early years when the subject matter was fresh, and the resurgence during the WWII era. The studio was certainly cutting corners in production and script and no longer attracting A-name actors. And maybe that was because the industry had developed a different attitude about the genre by then and didn't have enough faith (or script material) to interest top talent. But you could certainly see a marked decline in the quality of script and the directors involved. I think that's why A&CMF is such a nice parting gift, given it's timeless quality. But in the same breath it also showed you what the industry was thinking about the material. Thank GOD Abbott & Costello were given the treatment (originally entitled "The Brain of Frankenstein"). Although it's always interesting to read how they deplored the movie and thought it was their poorest work. Maybe because they had such free reign to ad lib the material did it become the classic it did?

[MIB41]

^I like it. And with shows like Once Upon a Time being a hit, it could work. I've always felt that Larry Talbot emerged as the hero of the Universal films when viewed as a series, and liked how he was so proactive in A&C Meets Frankenstein.

I'm on the hunt for a copy of Jeff Rovin's Wolfman book, that picks up wher A&CMF leaves off. I hear it's pretty good.
Chris

There's actually a whole series of books. I think three or four novels that continue that story line. I've got them all but never got around to reading them. I looked up the Return of the Wolfman paperback on Amazon and about p*ssed myself when I saw the asking prices. Didn't realize there was that kind of demand. Perhaps they should do another printing?