Universal Classic Monsters: A Review

The Universal Classic Monster movies, as they are known now, ran from 1925 until 1956. There were 30 films in over 25 years: 7 monsters with 17 sequels, two remakes (one in Spanish), and at least 4 cross-overs or spin-offs. The peak of this series of films was in the ‘40s, as 16 films were released that decade. The primary stars were Lon Chaney, Sr. (The Phantom of the Opera), Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Boris Karloff (Frankenstein’s Monster and The Mummy), Claude Rains (The Invisible Man), Lon Chaney, Jr. (The Wolf Man), and Ben Chapman (Gill-Man).

For the purpose of this piece we will be focusing on the 10 most highly-regarded of these 30 films, as most of them are sequels considered greatly inferior to their respective originals. We will include one sequel and one cross-over. Those 10 movies in review and to be ranked in this piece are The Phantom of the Opera (1925), Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Invisible Man (1933), The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Werewolf of London (1935), The Wolf Man (1941), Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), and The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954).

The following movies will be left out: the Spanish version of Dracula (1931), Dracula’s Daughter (1936), Son of Frankenstein (1939), The Invisible Man Returns (1940), The Mummy’s Hand (1940), The Invisible Woman (1940), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), Invisible Agent (1942), The Mummy’s Tomb (1942), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), Phantom of the Opera remake (1943), Son of Dracula (1943), The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944), The Mummy’s Ghost (1944), The House of Frankenstein (1944), The Mummy’s Curse (1944), House of Dracula (1945), Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man (1951), Revenge of the Creature (1955), Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955), and The Creature Walks Among Us (1956). Given the annual nature of these films - sometimes 3 or 4 in a year! - it’s no wonder that many of these are reputed to be duds. BUT Son of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man Returns, The Ghost of Frankenstein, and Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man are supposed to be actually really good! So, feel free to hunt those down if you’re curious enough.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

This late Silent Era picture was the first of Universal Studios’ classic series of monster films. It is also the first adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s novel. Leroux himself met the president of Universal Studios, Carl Laemmle, Sr. in 1922 while Laemmle was vacationing in Paris and gave Laemmle a copy of his novel. The film is essentially about a supposed ghost who comes from the cellar of the Paris Opera House to haunt performances. It is eventually learned that the much-feared Phantom is a man named Erik who has fallen for an understudy (Christine) of the current opera’s star, Carlotta. He wants Christine to become a star, so beautiful does he find her voice, and for her to be his love.

I’m not sure if this archetype existed before, but it seems The Phantom (a.k.a. Erik) - given an iconic performance by Lon Chaney, Sr., who designed his own makeup - is the original “monster tries taking ownership of woman he loves”. We would see it again in 1933’s King Kong (another Universal picture, albeit one not usually considered part of the Classic Monster shared universe) and in other Universal Monster movies. The film, 95 years later, has a fairly riveting 2nd half that won’t be spoiled here (it’s only 78 minutes, folks!). It also occurs to me that, while there is a very popular musical adaptation, this is not a story that would translate as well to sound - at least not as a straight-forward thriller. One of the reasons it works so well is you DON’T hear the Phantom laughing or spewing his villainous dialogue; it’s left to the viewer’s imagination. This works especially well with Chaney’s performance, which utilizes the Silent Era pantomime to great dramatic effect.

The film is not without its issues, however. The first half fails to quite grab one’s attention and can make the film a bit difficult to get into. Knowing The Phantom is just a guy can deflate some of the power of the titular character, especially with such lines as “Did you think you could fool Erik?” and “Say you will be the bride of Erik!”. It leads one’s mind to wonder what the hell Erik was doing all this time down in the depths beneath the opera house before he discovered Christine? Was he just spooking for spook’s sake? What were his life’s motivations pre-Christine?

The edit I saw was quite efficient and brisk, although there were a couple of odd cuts that hint at something more. There was, in fact, more, as the production of the film was quite troubled, with reshoots and re-edits. There is apparently a cut of the film that is 1 hour and 47 minutes in length. Curious cinephiles may be able to hunt that down somewhere, but it does feel like the extra half hour would definitely cause the film to overstay its welcome.

Dracula (1931)

So, this was the first sound version of Dracula. It’s technically an adaptation of a stage play, which is an adaptation of the famous Bram Stoker novel. That play is sort of an important piece, because it served as the blueprint for the script and it is where Bela Lugosi (Dracula) and Edward Van Sloan (Professor Van Helsing) originated their parts. It’s also been noted that this is pretty much the first straight-forward supernatural horror film with no comedy or tricks to undercut the supernatural elements.

In case you aren’t familiar, Dracula tells the story of a Count from Transylvania, a vampire, who plots to lease an abbey next to an asylum in London for… reasons. His overall intentions are fairly vague. But amidst all of this he acquires a human slave to do his bidding, enslaves a woman as one of his vampire girls, and attempts to enslave the daughter of the head of the asylum, Dr. Seward, Mina Seward, who is engaged to Jonathan Harker, a bit of a wet blanket. Now, in the novel Dracula’s intentions are to move to London to spread the undead. You can imagine a major city like London even in the late 1800s would be quite enticing if you want to make more vampires and to have a regular feast of bloodbags handy. That intention, as I indicated previously, is not so clear here. Most of the focus is on Seward’s sanatorium, the neighboring abbey, and those within both locations.

Anyway, this movie is a cultural icon. Most of that is because of Bela Lugosi, who had to lobby hard for the part and take a measly salary. For being one of cinema’s enduring icons, his life and career is quite tragic. See Tim Burton’s Ed Wood for more on that. I digress. Lugosi does so much with his line delivery and his eyes - even when he’s not in a close-up. His deliberate pauses and Hungarian accent sell the character and has been mimicked and parodied many times for a reason. He is the definitive Dracula. But, beyond Lugosi - and there is much to appreciate beyond him - you have Dwight Frye as his lapdog, Renfield. Frye’s transformation from oblivious and proper paper-pusher to bug-obsessed madman is remarkable; his laugh, unforgettable. Frye is one of the film’s unsung heroes. No version of Renfield since has been so creepy and unforgettable. Also, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing is kind of a bad ass. His two key scenes, in which he first discovers the Count has no reflection and when he later faces off against Dracula in a literal battle of willpower, are impressive. This Van Helsing is incredibly intelligent and is the real hero of the story.

The film itself is gripping and a huge leap forward for Universal from The Phantom of the Opera six years before. At 75 minutes, it is a condensed version of the novel and alters some character relationships, most notably Jonathan Harker, who is reduced to a hand-wringing gentleman who worries about his fiancee all the time. The only other issue with the film, aside from the Jonathan Harker character and Dracula’s motives lacking clarity, are the Transylvanian wildlife. The film opens with shots of the crypt beneath the Transylvanian castle. In those shots and others later are oppossums and armadillos. There’s even a shot of a bug coming out of its own coffin. Why would there be marsupials and armadillos in Hungary? I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense and takes me out of the moody atmosphere for a moment.

By and large, this is a great film. It is efficiently told with excellent performances that have stood up the test of time. It’s a Halloween perennial for a reason.

Frankenstein (1931)

The same year as Tod Browning’s Dracula, James Whale’s Frankenstein was released. The film adapts Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel about a scientist who creates life and is horrified by his creation. Like Dracula, it was also produced by Carl Laemmle, Jr., who took over the studio and producing responsibilities from his father in 1928. And like Dracula, it is one of the most iconic films of its time. Boris Karloff’s monster is an image that is instantly recognizable to even those who haven’t seen the film. And like Dracula, the film co-stars Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan. Frye plays Fritz, Frankenstein’s hunchbacked assistant. Van Sloan plays Dr. Waldman, a former teacher of Frankenstein who becomes involved in the events after the creature’s creation.

This film is extraordinarily rich and thematic while being so simply plotted. It’s a film where no specific character is a villain. One would assume the villain of the film is the scientist Henry Frankenstein. But while his intentions of creating life through a scientific discovery are misguided he has a fiancee he loves, a father who is a well-respected part of the community, and his actions are never inherently cruel or insane. He’s a man who mistakenly played god and soon wishes to undo his mistake, helping lead a mob hunt the creature. Frankenstein is often thought of as a mad scientist, but throughout the film he demonstrates he is sane, has a conscience, and is capable of love and compassion.

The creature itself is no villain either, however. It is a creature that is disoriented, experiencing the world for the first time. His first experience with man is fear. When he is presented by Frankenstein to Dr. Waldman, Fritz runs in with a torch suddenly and scares the creature. It reacts with fear and is held down and put in captivity. That teaches the creature punishment, along with torture as Fritz often visits the creature to torment it with fire. A little girl is the first person outside the castle to meet the creature and she accepts him immediately as he is. She doesn’t cower or lash out in fear. Instead she wants it to play with him. The creature is taken by this and reciprocates. Unfortunately, the creature’s ignorance leads to an accidental tragedy, which it responds to with a primal instinct of flight. What’s key here is the creature, when met with innocence and compassion, does not act with malice. And thus, the creature is not inherently evil.

This gets to one of the reasons why this film is one of the greatest of its time and that’s its thematic richness. Through the examples of Fritz and the monster and the monster and the girl we have explorations of whether or not it is in humanity’s nature to cause pain and suffering through intentional or accidental means, whether that is an inevitable part of our experience as humans. Add on top of that this business about which brain Fritz snatched for the experiment, whether a perfect brain or an abnormal brain. It turns out the type of brain the creature is given has no bearing on the creature’s nature. So then you have a film that questions whether we are who we are by nature or by experience. It’s all very fascinating for an early talkie horror flick!

The Mummy (1932)

So, here we are at the fourth film of the Universal Classic Monster series. And this is, by far, the worst at this point.

It’s worth noting that this is the first monster movie here that is not adapted from other material. There was no Mummy novel or play. So, Laemmle was inspired by the opening of King Tut’s tomb in 1922. He had someone research any novels about mummies. There were none. So, instead they cobbled together a few resources and ideas - most especially, The Book of the Dead - and came up with this film.

Now, when people think of The Mummy character, they most often think of a bandage-clad dude shuffling around and strangling people or whatever. What’s interesting is this film couldn’t be further from that. Yes, Boris Karloff kicks off the film being awoken from his coffin in bandages and shuffles off. But that is one minute in a 70+ minute movie. The rest of the film cuts to 10 years later and the Mummy (aka Imhotep) has taken on the identity of Ardeth Bay. He essentially is a man who was buried alive after trying to resurrect a princess he loved. He now embarks on a convoluted plot that involves getting two men to dig up the princess’s tomb, meet by happenstance the daughter of one of the men who happens to be possibly a descendant of the princess, possess that woman with the soul of the princess, burn the original mummified body, kill the girl in order to resurrect the princess permanently. Whew!

So, this movie is an absolute mess from a plot perspective. Imhotep is awakened and then… what does he do for the next 10 years? We’re told by plot descriptions that he learned how to apply makeup to make himself more presentable. He clearly spent time learning Old English, as he a) speaks English and b) says a lot of ‘thou’s and other archaic words for 1930s. He apparently got himself out of those bandages and bought himself a wardrobe, as he’s dressed most of the film in a fez and a mumu. That’s not a lot to do in 10 years. Maybe a year or two. So, did he just rip it up in the Roarin' Twenties? Why do we have a 10-year leap in time? Furthermore, his plan is incredibly convoluted and requires what appears to be the chance meeting of his love’s descendant (Zita Johann) in order to work out.

In addition, the rules of the character are all over the place. This guy who was buried somehow gained the power to possess people through a ring he wears. But he also has a smoky pool of water from which he can possess or kill people. Yet he needs to go through the efforts of stabbing the damsel in distress in order for his plan to work out. Unlike the previous monsters, none of The Mummy makes sense.

You also have a wet blanket of a love interest named Frank (David Manners), which continues this element from Dracula that is an attempt to raise the stakes by making the damsel the object of someone’s affections and therefore more important to save. It’s even more ridiculous here since Frank sort of forces the relationship immediately upon meeting her. Even she is taken aback by him and asks to pump the breaks a bit.

The elements worthy of interest or praise here are 1) the close-up shots of Karloff’s face whenever he’s trying to possess someone. They are the most effective shots of the film. They recall similar shots of Lugosi in Dracula - and maybe they should, because the cinematographer of that film, Karl Freund, is the director of this film! 2) Edward Van Sloan returns in his third monster movie outing since Dracula, this time as Dr. Muller. That alone is interesting, because it makes clear (in case it wasn’t already before in Frankenstein) this is not a series of films originally conceived as being connected - and Universal Studios perhaps wouldn’t think of that idea until a few years later. But what’s even more interesting about that character is he is an expert in the ancient beliefs and Egyptian spirituality. He protests against Imhotep’s tomb being disturbed at all, given some clear indications that some shit will go down if they are. What he represents is this idea that is introduced - and there’s shades of it in Frankenstein, as well - that there are some things that science should leave alone and that, in the case of The Mummy, spiritual beliefs are, in some ways, more important than scientific discovery. These ideas, however, are quickly dropped and aren’t enough to save the film from its shortcomings.

The Invisible Man (1933)

This is the 2nd of 3 films directed by James Whale and the 2nd-to-last film produced by Laemmle, Jr. With The Invisible Man we go back to adapting stories from classic novels, this time the 1898 H.G. Wells novel - and we’re better off for it.

In case you aren’t familiar, Claude Rains stars as a mysterious man who comes into an Inn from a snowstorm. He is dressed in an overcoat and hat, with dark glasses and bandages covering his face. He stays at the Inn for at least a week, working on scientific experiments. Once he is pressed for his overdue fees he becomes irritated and reveals himself to be invisible, unwrapping his head and shedding his clothes until nothing can be seen. It turns out the man is a chemist who discovered a serum that can make one invisible. What he doesn’t know is how to undo the serum and is attempting to make an antidote. He also is unaware of the effects the serum has on his sanity, as it makes him more aggressive and insane.

So, The Invisible Man carries with it a couple of similar elements of previous films: there is an overall theme of man meddling with things that must be left alone (almost an exact quote said twice in the film) and a female character who is either an existing love interest or the object of the title character’s obsession. In this case, the woman (Gloria Stuart, who this generation knows best as Old Rose in Titanic) is the title scientist’s fiancee, which is similar to Dr. Frankenstein. And, like in Frankenstein and most of these films, she is not the film’s strength. She exists purely to demonstrate our protagonist wasn’t always crazy and provides him with motivation… sort of. In all honesty, few of the supporting characters are memorable save for Una O’Connor’s shrieking Jenny Hall, the innkeeper’s wife; her comedic hysteria will amuse some and annoy others, but none will forget her.

Claude Rains and the special effects are the real star here; the entire film relies on them in order to succeed. And they do succeed. Rains, a 40-something Englishman in his first American film, is diabolical. His voicework is superb. The effects are still jaw-dropping, “How did they do that?” cool. Most of the effects team’s (John Fulton, John Mescall, and Frank Williams) work is still rather seamless. One buys into the film to this day because of these two elements. They make the film as thrilling as it is.

The Invisible Man’s motives are a little unclear; one moment he wants to create a cure, the other he wants world domination - a sure sign of his insanity, the first actual mad scientist. But Universal Studios certainly bounced back from the dull Mummy with this introduction to a new monster that is as thrilling a flick as any of the rest.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Here we have the first sequel of any of the Universal Classic Monster movies. This is also the first of these films subjected to the Hays Code, a precursor to the ratings system that would last until the mid-’60s. Development of this film began immediately upon the release of the 1931 original, but director James Whale hesitated, thinking there was nothing more that could be done with the concept. Laemmle, Jr., after seeing his work on The Invisible Man, persuaded Whale to return and Whale relented in exchange for making another film first, One More River.

In case you’re not familiar, the film takes place shortly before the original’s ending with the windmill burning due to a mob and Dr. Henry Frankenstein being carried away back to the castle where his wife anxiously awaits. Henry is nursed back to health and marries Elizabeth, but not before a new character, Dr. Septimus Pretorius, enters stage right to compel Henry to continue his work. Pretorius is a curious fellow who has experiments of his own with the living. Unlike Henry, Pretorius is an actual mad scientist, insane with ego and vanity, devoid of ethics. He is the closest we’ve come so far in the Frankenstein story to a legitimate villain. Yet he is also coded as gay and gives the films their first dose of camp.

A couple cast members from the original were replaced for various reasons: the Burgomaster, Elizabeth Frankenstein, and Hans, whose daughter drowned in the original. As though Whale were amused by her work in The Invisible Man, Una O’Connor was cast as Minnie, a member of the mob and apparently head maid of Frankenstein Castle. Also, worth noting: Dwight Frye, who played Renfield in Dracula and Fritz in Frankenstein, comes back as a new minor character, completely unrecognizable and almost appearing to do his best Peter Lorre impression.

What’s interesting about The Bride of Frankenstein is how it further develops the monster character of the original. He learns to speak. He cries. He learns the pleasures of food, beverage, and music. Cigars, lit by fire, the monster’s biggest fear, offer a pleasure that helps him learn some things can be both good and bad, which leads to his understanding of morality. Yet, despite all of his personal growth, he still longs for companionship. He briefly has one in a hermit, who taught him many of these lessons. But society rips that friendship apart upon its discovery, so the monster still yearns. It’s as though this film is asserting that, despite everything we learn and grow and become as humans, we are not complete without companionship in any form. The ending, which I won’t spoil here, seems to make a definitive statement on this, as though our lives are meaningless without companionship. This is a fascinating theme and the development of it certainly makes The Bride… stand out among the other films. It is possibly the most moving of any UCM movie.

Perhaps because of this, there is much said about it being superior to the original and certainly one of the greatest sequels of all time - maybe the first great sequel ever made. It is a great film without question. But I don’t think it is as rich and layered a film as the original.

This was the last of the Universal Classic Monster movies that Carl Laemmle, Jr. would act as producer. He would be forced to step down as the head of Universal Studios the next year.

Werewolf of London (1935)

One month after the release of The Bride of Frankenstein, Universal Studios released the first-ever werewolf film. That is Werewolf of London’s claim to fame. It would also be the last monster movie to be released during Carl Laemmle’s reign as studio head. He would be forced out in 1936 due to a tendency to overspend on films with little return or profit.

This film, however, continues the “ought not be meddling with” through-line we’ve seen in many of these films, which is literally spoken within the film’s first five minutes. In this case, an English botanist traveled to Tibet to discover a rare flower that supposedly grows by moonlight. Upon discovery of the plant he is attacked by a creature. Licking his wounds from the encounter, he returns with the plant to London where he experiments to learn more about the flower. The plot thickens when he is visited by a mysterious botanist, Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland), who warns our hero, Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull), was attacked by a werewolf and he will turn into one, as well. The plant serves as a temporary salve against the lycanthropy affliction, but not a cure. And turn into a werewolf, Dr. Glendon does, as you can imagine.

So, this film is rarely given any attention in favor of our next entry. And there’s a few reasons for that, but one of them is because it just isn’t quite as engaging as the upcoming film or even many of the other films discussed above. Much of that has to do with star Henry Hull, who fails to command the camera’s attention as well as Lugosi, Karloff, or even the invisible Rains. Another reason is more than likely the incredibly problematic co-star, Warner Oland, who plays, I guess based on the name, a Japanese botanist. Now, Oland was a Swedish American who would die three years later. But he had made a huge career out of playing Asian characters, both villainous (Dr. Fu Manchu) and heroic (Charlie Chan). While he doesn’t play up the Asian caricatures in Werewolf in London as he did in his most famous roles, it is still an issue. One wonders why Oland’s character had to be Asian at all, as there is nothing on the page about the character that requires this background. Knowing about Oland’s career up to that point, it feels more like type-casting than anything else. Regardless, it isn’t a strength of the film.

Interestingly enough, this original film concept of man-turned-wolf is quite different from what we would see later on. The werewolf goes out wearing a jacket and hat, for example. He strangles on screen and occasionally mangles off screen. It is less like a human turning into another creature and more like a human afflicted with a physical transformation and a bloodlust, as he still seems to retain his human consciousness. It’s a very interesting original template of the monster, in a way.

There are elements of the film that are interesting in terms of both thrills and intellectual curiosity. However, the story isn’t interested in too much beyond the basic concept and inherent thrills. And most of the cast is either problematic or lacks any chemistry with the camera. Werewolf of London isn’t the worst original monster movie Universal produced, but it isn’t among the best either.

The Wolf Man (1941)

After a few years of sequels for most of the monsters (including 3 in 1940 alone, 2 of which were Invisible sequels) and a new logo and studio head John Cheever Cowdin, Universal Studios released a new werewolf. Unlike the one in London, this one would stick.

With The Wolf Man, we have a handful of interesting elements. With a cast that includes Lon Chaney, Jr., Claude Rains, Bela Lugosi, and Ralph Bellamy, The Wolf Man is, by far, the most star-studded of the Universal Classic Monster movies at this point.

As for the werewolf legend as we know it, while Werewolf in London introduced the concept to film and the idea that the transformation is related to the moon (exposure to moonlight causes the change), the monster is vulnerable to any object and killed by a single gunshot. It is in The Wolf Man that we are introduced to the idea that only silver can affect or kill the werewolf. The film also introduces the pentagram as the sign of the werewolf, often visible on one of the creature’s next victims. And, while London introduced the idea of lycanthropy being tied to the moon, which would evolve into the full moon idea we all know now, in The Wolf Man a poem is introduced that would be used consistently in many werewolf films. However, the poem claims the transformation is linked to when the wolfsbane plant blooms in the autumn. The full moon concept wouldn’t be introduced until the first sequel, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, possibly retconning this film’s wolfsbane idea. What’s also interesting is with London and The Wolf Man we are introduced to perhaps the first legitimately scary monster in that all of the other monsters either had a singular purpose or victim in mind and only killed those who stood in the way or, in the case of Frankenstein’s monster, those who antagonized him. Here (and in London), we have the first monster who kills mostly indiscriminately and randomly.

As a film, The Wolf Man is one of the most effective monster movies as simply a monster movie. A man is bitten by a werewolf and discovers he is one, too. He is horrified by his transformation. Those around him refuse to believe there is anything but an actual wild animal running loose in town and attempts to hunt it down. A love interest gets mixed up in the whole affair. Like most of these films, just about every supporting character is unimpressive except the stars noted earlier. Claude Rains had done many films since his star-making role in The Invisible Man, including The Adventures of Robin Hood and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The Wolf Man would be the 2nd of 3 monster movies he would do for Universal (he would also star in The Phantom of the Opera remake in 1943). Rains was only 17 years older than Chaney, Jr., so it is a little odd seeing him play the lead’s father.

Ralph Bellamy had already starred in dozens of films by 1941, including The Awful Truth and His Girl Friday. His career would continue to prosper with roles in films like Rosemary’s Baby, Trading Places, Coming to America, and Pretty Woman, his final film.

Lon Chaney, Jr., whose father was the original Phantom of the Opera and known as The Man of 1,000 Faces due to his many makeup-heavy roles, would go on, despite the events in this film, to play The Wolf Man in 4 more films. He also may be the only star to have the distinction of also playing The Mummy, Dracula, and Frankenstein’s Monster in various sequels of each. He would go on to have work every year (except 1949 and 1962) for the next 30 years until his death, including in High Noon and The Defiant Ones. None would have as much a cultural impact as his Wolf Man.

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

After 1941’s The Wolf Man, the ‘40s were saturated with sequels to the above movies, most of which were released between 1942 and 1944; eleven films in all. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) was the first to cross over any of the monsters. And then The House of Frankenstein (1944) and The House of Dracula (1945) continued in that vein by having Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and the Wolf Man all in one film. It’s worth noting that Lon Chaney, Jr. was the only actor to return at this point as his respective monster. Karloff played Frankenstein’s Monster in one more sequel after Bride…, Son of Frankenstein, and then was done with that role. He would appear in The House of Frankenstein as a mad scientist, but left the stiff-legged stomping to Glenn Strange, who would play the monster three times. Lugosi, who had originated the role of Ygor in Frankenstein sequels and even played the monster in the 1943 cross-over hit, did not return to the cape and fangs of his most famous role, Dracula, until 1948’s Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were a comedy duo who got their start in the mid-’30s as a burlesque comedy duo. They moved their act to radio in the late-’30s and found great success well into the ‘40s. Meanwhile, in the early ‘40s, they were signed by Universal Studios to bring their comedy repartee to film. They would go on to make 37 films between 1940 and 1956. Theirs would be one of the most prolific and financially successful franchises in the history of film to this day.

Now, as to how this film came about, I don’t know. But it may be that Universal first saw all of these monster films on their hands and thought, “Why not bring all of them together for one big cross-over?”, which they did with the aforementioned films. And then they also had the Abbott and Costello franchise, which was also lucrative and maybe thought, “Why not bring all of the franchises together?” (The Mummy and Invisible Man were considered for one of the previous projects, but dropped. However, one of them makes a brief cameo in this film). Whatever the reasons, it was a brilliant idea that made 4 times the budget in revenue.

The basic plot is Abbott and Costello are baggage handlers that get caught up in scheme that involves Dracula reviving Frankenstein’s Monster with a more compliant brain. Costello has a love interest that may not be on the up-and-up and entangled in this plot. Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) cajoles the comedy duo to help him stop Dracula. As you can imagine, things get hairy from there…

I don’t know if this is the first blend of horror and comedy, but every element works so well together here. Most of the comedy comes from the cowardly Costello, who sees what he sees and is never believed by his pal Abbott. When all of the monsters clash - with the comedy duo caught in the middle - it is a pure delight. This is one of the great comedies of the 1940s - right up there with His Girl Friday, Ball of Fire, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, and Arsenic and Old Lace, another horror comedy. Like those films it is still laugh-out-loud hilarious today. Glenn Strange’s Monster is lifeless and lumbering compared to Karloff’s version - and it is missed. But he’s a dent in what is otherwise a perfect film.

It is also worth noting that at 83 minutes, it is one of the longest of the Universal Classic Monster movies. Only Son of Frankenstein would rival it at 100 minutes, as the average runtime of these films was 75 minutes.

Universal Studios would tempt fate by producing two more Abbott and Costello / monster cross-over films (…Invisible Man in 1951 and …The Mummy in 1956), but would fail to capture this film’s greatness. But the studio had one more success to come in the monster series…

The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

The output of the monster movies by Universal Studios had slowed by the time Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was filmed. Aside from the comedy duo’s films, there would be no further sequels of the monster movies. The well had seemed to run dry. That is until producer William Alland got inspired by a legend of a race of half-fish, half-man creatures in the Amazon River. Writers were hired and Universal Studios was off and running on one more monster movie.

If you’re not familiar, the film is about an expedition to a part of the Amazon River where remains of a new species has been discovered. The crew - which includes a geologist, an icthyologist, and two other scientists, one of which is the lovely and intelligent Kay, the icthyologist’s girlfriend and eventual damsel in distress, and a boat captain - soon encounters one of these creatures and must fight for their lives.

The Creature from the Black Lagoon is notable for many reasons. It is the first of Universal’s monster movies to not be set in Europe nor sometime around the turn of the century. This film was set in South America and was a film of its time. It’s quite the shift, as it’s completely absent of the gothic atmosphere of the previous films (except the Abbott and Costello films, of course). Many of the previous films also involved science and man’s meddling with nature or spirituality. Where films like Frankenstein and The Invisible Man were about experiments, Creature is more akin to The Mummy where the desire for scientific discovery leads to trouble. Yet the science here seems more grounded and specific than in The Mummy, as we hear scientists of their field spout theories and lingo.

It’s also notable for being the only film with a cast of characters that each stand out in their own way. Kay (Julie Adams, who passed away last year) is beautiful and compassionate, but knowledgeable and scientifically curious - far from the forgettable female leads of many of these movies. Mark (Richard Denning) is a scientist who serves as the expedition’s financial benefactor. As such, he is one of the earliest examples I’ve seen in horror of the greedy douche. David (Richard Carlson) is the hero of the story, who is interested in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, but not at the expense of people’s lives, including his girlfriend’s. Captain Lucas (Nestor Paiva, a Portuguese-American playing a Latino) provides comic relief, but also refuses to be bossed around by Mark. And this is all quite interesting and necessary, as in The Creature from the Black Lagoon, unlike its predecessors, the cast of characters actually get bumped off or seriously wounded by the Creature! This would be a trope utilized ad nauseum in the slasher genre to come nearly 25 years later.

What’s also worth noting is the fact that we don’t see what the Creature looks like for 20-30 minutes of the film. We only see a webbed hand reaching out from the water, attack workers, or a boat get rocked by something below. This is an exciting technique that helps build tension for the viewer that would be used to great effect 21 years later by Steven Spielberg in Jaws. There’s also the Beauty & The Beast aspect that it pulls off almost as well as 1933’s King Kong.

The Creature from the Black Lagoon spawned two sequels, the first would mark Clint Eastwood’s film debut and serve as an amusing episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The latter should give some indication of that film’s quality. The third film was even worse. But the 1954 original provided a thrilling original monster movie that Universal Studios could be proud of before letting it all lay dormant for a while.

The Ranking

So, we’ve gone through 10 of the 30 Universal Classic Monster movies - exactly 1/3 of the catalogue! There were 20 more films, but, as I mentioned before, only 4 of those are reputed to be worthy of most people’s time. Here is my ranking of the cream of Universal’s crop from best to worst:

1. Frankenstein

2. The Bride of Frankenstein

3. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

4. The Creature from the Black Lagoon

5. Dracula

6. The Wolf Man

7. The Invisible Man

8. The Phantom of the Opera

9. Werewolf of London

10. The Mummy

What are your thoughts? How would you rank these films? Which is your favorite?