Tales of the Thin Man

Perhaps the greatest on-screen marriage of all times is that of Nick and Nora Charles, the sleuthing partiers-turned-parents that were originally created by legendary mystery writer Dashell Hammett. The films they appeared in have been collected in a DVD boxed set that is worthy of them.

Warner Bros. pulled out all the stops for "The Thin Man Collection", a seven DVD set that presents near-flawless transfers of the "Thin Man" comedies from the 1930s and 1940s and such a huge selection of extras that most other DVD sets you buy after this one will feel overpriced.

For around $40 (if you buy the set through Amazon.com), you get all six classic Thin Man comedies starring William Powell and Myrna Loy, excellent documentaries on Powell and Loy, and a wide selection of cartoons and short features. In fact, every disc in the set can be used to replicate an "old time night at the movies," with short films to watch before the feature presentation. Each every one of them is fascinating and great fun, with the "Tell-Tale Heart" adaptation included is particularly excellent.

If you haven't seen the Thin Man flms and have any appreciation for classic comedies or the detective films of the 1930s and 1940s, you absolutely must, at the very least, see "The Thin Man". If you need a gift for someone who loves classic movies, you can't go wrong if you get them "The Thin Man Collection". I guarentee they will love every minute of it.

As for the Thin Man movies themselves, read on for my take on each of them.

The Thin Man (1934)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Maureen O'Sullivan, Nat Pendleton, Edward Ellis, Mina Gombell and William Henry
Director: W.S. van Dyke

When the return to New York City of retired ace private detective Nick Charles (Powell) coincides with a former client (Ellis) disspearing while under a cloud of suspicion of murder, everyone from cops to crooks assumes he's on the case. Nick, however, wants nothing to do with crime-solving, preferring instead to celebrate the Christmas holiday with his loving wife Nora (Loy) in a drunken stupour. When bullets start flying in his direction, and a police detective (Pendleton) starts drawing conclusions that are obviously wrong to Nick, he takes up the case with his terrier Asta on a leash in one hand and a drink in the other.


"The Thin Man" is one of the best comedy/mysteries ever made. It's got a strong mystery driving the plot, it's got incredibly funny dialogue of the sort that very few writers are capable of creating today and even fewer actors are capable of delivering properly, and it features one of the funniest, warmest martital relationships to ever appear on film. I think this is also probably the only movie where the detective spends the entire story--which spans several weeks--drunk as a skunk!

Although it was filmed by the low-budget division of Warner Bros., "The Thin Man" was the most popular film of 1934 and it was nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Actor (for William Powell). It's easy to see why. Powell and Loy's onscreen chemistry and high-energy bantering gives the impression of a very believable couple who are deeply in love and equal partners in their relationship, even if she's from a background of wealth and he's come up from the street. They're equally witty, equally adventerous, and equally hard-drinking.

Another aspect of the film that is hilarous is the spoofing of detective fiction mainstays.

Like Sherlock Holmes, it seems that every other person in Nick Charles' circle of friends and acquaintances is a crook he sent to jail at one point--most of the guests at the Christmas party held by Nick and Nora are of the criminal class--and most of the people he has chance meetings with are of the same type. (Yet, Nick is so charming and likable that even criminals he sent up the river end up being his pals.)

Even funnier is the spoofing of the typical Agatha Christie climax where the detective gathers all the suspects together to reveal who the murderer is. Here, Nick and Nora throw a very expensive dinner party and Nick has his police detective friends bring the guests wether they want to come or not. Nick playing host while unspooling his theory of the crime at the same time leads to some very funny misunderstandings at the table.

With William Powell and Myrna Loy providing the film with a solid center of charm and wit, and a cast of excellent supporting actors including Maureen O'Sullivan and Nat Pendleton orbiting around them, "The Thin Man" is a comedy classic that is as fun and entertaining today as it was when it first premiered nearly 75 years ago. It's a movie that is well deserving of the label "classic."




After the Thin Man (1936)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Elissa Landi, Joseph Calleia, Sam Levene, Polly Singleton, James Stewart and George Zucco
Director: W.S. Van Dyke
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Nick and Nora Charles (Powell and Loy) return to San Francisco hoping to spend a quiet New Year's Eve alone at home. But they arrive to find their house full of revelers who are there for a surprise party in their honor and Nick is quickly (and reluctantly) drawn into a scandal brewing around Nora's wealthy relatives: It starts with the gold-digging husband of her cousin (Landi) vanishing and gets worse when she becomes the prime suspect in his murder.


"After the Thin Man" is a fast-paced mystery movie that lovers of classic films will enjoy quite a bit. It delivers a solid story portrayed by a talented cast and filmed with a high degree of skill. It's good, but it's nothing rises to the dizzying heights of hilarity as "The Thin Man", nor is the back and forth of loving putdowns and snappy comebacks between Nick and Nora as free-flowing.

This is still a very well done comedy mystery that captures the feel of San Francisco's high society during the Roaring Twenties, and if it wasn't the follow-up to a masterpiece, I might have felt a little less dissapointed in it. The fact is, though, that it's not until the final ten minutes of running time that the movie fully exhibits the qualities that made "The Thin Man" such an amazing film.

William Powell and Myrna Loy are as charasmatic here as they were in the first movie, even if the script isn't quite as good. They aided by a great supporting cast of talented actors who present a gallery of quirky and suspicious characters, with a young James Stewart giving a particuarly good performance. In fact, James Stewart's performance is a key element of the ending being as effective as it is. (The very cute denoument will also leave you with a smile on your face and thinking about checking out the sequel, "Another Thin Man".)




Another Thin Man (1939)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Otto Kruger, Nat Pendleton, C. Aubrey Smith, Virginia Grey and Tom Neal
Director: W. S. Van Dyke
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

One-time party-circuit mainstays and trouble-magnets Nick and Nora Charles (Powell and Loy), now the proud parents of a baby boy, have resolved to put their wild lives of partying and crime-solving behind them. However, when the manager of Nora's investments (Smith) is murdered under mysterious circumstances, the pair are drawn into solving a mystery where the only apparent suspects either have air-tight alibis or end up dead themselves.


It is said the couples mature once they have a child and Nick and Nora seem to be holding true to that in their third cinematic adventure, "Another Thin Man". There's no partying--with the exception of just about everyone Nick ever "sent up the river" in New York bringing babies to the Charles' residence to help celebrate Nicky Jr.'s first birthday--very little boozing (even if Nick sneaks a drink every chance he gets) and while a visit to a night-time hotspot shows that Nora can still wrap any man around her finger, it ultimately serves to give another illustration of the deep affection that she and Nick have for one another and to underscore their newly discovered maturity.

Although the tone of "Another Thin Man" is a little different than the two previous movies, it's still very funny. The humor now revolves mostly around Nick and Nora's marriage (and Nick's rough-and-tumble past) and their relationship with one another remains as playful as ever even without the free-flowing booze. The mystery featured is also very fascinating although it gets a little too tangled for its own good and comes across as just a little too far fetched, something I suspect even the writers were aware of since they had a character comment that she feared the scheme was too involved.

The cast all do an excellent job, and I think letting Nick and Nora "grow up" was a wise decision, not just because they have a child now, but because it seems believable; William Powell and Myrna Loy were starting to show the fact they were well into their middle years, so it seems right that the most beloved characters they ever portrayed should age and mature as well. The only dissapointment I felt with this second sequel to "The Thin Man" was that the now-expected round-up of all the suspects and Nick ultimately fingering the murderer was not as funny as the one in the original film, nor as dramatic as the one in "Another Thin Man". (The twist revelation of the killer's identity is undermined in part by the performer in the role not having the talent of James Stewart--the shift in personality and demeanor simply isn't as convincing or shocking.)




Shadow of the Thin Man (1941)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Sam Levene, Lou Lubin, Barry Nelson, Donna Reed, Henry O'Neill, Stella Adler, Loring Smith and Joseph Anthony
Director: W.S. Van Dyke
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

When a friend is accused of murdering a shady journalist, Nick and Nora Charles (Powell and Loy) are drawn into an investigation of a large racketeering and gambling operation.


"Shadow of the Thin Man" is the fourth installment in the Thin Man series, and it is the weakest entry so far. Stars William Powell and Myrna Loy display the same on-screen chemistry they've shown since the series' beginning, and Nick and Nora's relationship is as fun and interesting to watch unfold as ever, but the script they are working with here is average fare for the comedy/mystery genre of the day. The only unusual touch is Nick and Nora's son, Nick Jr. It's rare to see a wise-cracking movie detective like Nick Charles wrapped around the finger of a four year-old kid.

Although light on plot and jokes, the film still features a fine cast, a brisk pace, and a nice mystery that unfolds mostly in the open so the attentive viewers can solve the crime along with Nick if they choose. The humor and the great chemistry and charm of William Powell and Myrna Low make this film as entertaining today as it was in 1941. The only reason I felt a little dissapointed in the film was because it follows such a trio of excellent films that it feels like it represents a severe drop-off in quality.




The Thin Man Goes Home (1944)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy, Harry Davenport, Lucile Watson, Gloria DeHaven, Edward Brophy, Lloyd Corrigan, Helen Vison and Leon Ames
Directors Richard Thorpe and Norman Taurog
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

While Nick and Nora Charles (Powell and Loy) are vacationing in the small town where Nick grew up, a man is assassinated, literally in the doorway of the home of Nick's parents. Nora thinks this is a perfect opportunithy for Nick to show his father he isn't the drunken lout he believes him to be, and she pushes Nick to investigate the crime.


"The Thin Man Goes Home" is a change of pace and scenery for the classic "Thin Man" series of comedy-mysteries. Instead of being set in the swanky rooms of the wealthiest in America's largest cities, it takes place among the rich and powerful citizens in a picturesque small American town... and they are revealed to be every bit as vicious and self-centered and potentially evil as their supposedly more urbane counterparts.

The mystery in this film is more multi-faceted and involved than the one Nick was confronted with in the installment of the series immediately prior to this one ("Shadow of the Thin Man", review here), making the film more interesting. The jokes and physical humor in this film are also funnier and more finely honed than they've been since the first movie in the series, making this the best sequel since "After the Thin Man", review here).

Another difference in the film is that Nick actually solves the multiple mysteries that are tangled together in this film stone cold sober! Nick doesn't touch a drop of alcohol for the entire movie, because he is trying to impress his father (and also because in 1944, liquor was being rationed due to the war effort).

What is the same, however, is the wonderful onscreen chemistry between William Powell and Myrna Loy, and the continued portrayal of the pefect married relationship shared by the Charleses. I really can't think of an on-screen married couple that are as fun as these two and the back-and-forth between these two characters are as important to these films as the mysteries. (Relationship highlights in this film include a fun exchange over Nora's failed attempt to set up a lawnchair; Nora buying a birthday present for Nick thinking it is tied to fond memories and later discovering that she didn't get the full story when it came to his childhood reminicing; and Nick stranding Nora at a charity dance with a jitterbugging sailor so he can go on an investigation. Actually, the scene at the charity dance is one of the highlights of the entire Thin Man series!)

It maybe nearly 65 years since "The Thin Man Goes Home" was made, but the humor is still fresh and story is as good, and even better, than the vast of majority of films that have been made since.



Song of the Thin Man (1947)
Starring: William Powell, Myrna Loy and Keenan Wynn
Dierctor: Edward Buzzell
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Socialites Nick and Nora Charles (Powell and Loy) find themselves fish-out-water as they navigate a different type of party scene--that of jazz clubs and beatniks--to clear a hood-gone-straight of a murder charge.


The second to last line that William Powell speaks as Nick Charles is, "I'm going to retire."

Almost every aspect of "Song of the Thin Man" seems to be geared toward underscoring the point that the Charles' are getting a bit long in the tooth and that it is, indeed, time to retire.

Their one-time freewheeling party life has become focused on charity dinners and similar events, Nick is no longer recognized and welcomed everywhere he goes by cops and robbers alike--they all seem to have already retired--and when they do venture into the roaring jazz scene of the late 1940s, they are confused and disconcerted by what they find. To top it off, a real threat is launched against young Nick, Jr. as the couple are off on their investigation.

More than in any other of the Thin Man films, we see Nick and Nora out of their element, and we see that they're uncomfortable. While this occured in earlier films, they usually charmed their way through any possible discomfort, but they can't quite pull that off here. They are well into middle age, and the world is starting to accelerate past them.

While Myrna Loy is as gorgeous as ever, despite clearly being about a decade-and-a-half older than when the first film was made, William Powell looks tired in this film and even older perhaps than his 58 years. He looks like someone who would be uncomfortable around weird jazz musicians, and it's a shame, because Nick Charles shouldn't be uncomfortable around anyone.

Despite the fact that Nick and Nora feel like they are past their prime, Myrna Loy and William Powell still show the tremendous on-screen chemistry that carried this series from the very beginning. In fact, because the characters seem older and calmer, the chemsistry between the actors comes through even stronger. The true love that Nick and Nora have for each other is obviously one that will last until death do them part.

Aside from being saturated with the feeling that Nick and Nora's day has come and gone, the script for "Song of the Thin Man" is one of the weaker ones in the series. It's better than the one for "Shadow of the Thin Man", but it's a long way from the one that launched the series or even the one that immediately preceeded it, "The Thin Man Goes Home". The "big reveal" is particularly weak, almost as if the writers didn't quite know how to handle the Agatha Christie-style "gathering of the suspects" climax that had become part-and-parcel with the series. I almost wish they'd broken with convention, because they do a very poor job of trying to work it in.

Despite the fact that I felt a slight melancholy while watching the film, because of the sense that these two beloved characters were over-the-hill, "Song of the Thin Man" is still a funny comedy mystery with a plot that you aren't likely to figure out all the components of until Nick forces the truth into the open in the film's last minute. It may not be as good as early entries in the series, but it's still a film that holds up extremely well and that is as enjoyable now as it was sixty years ago.

Cinematic Black History Milestone:First Black Sidekick Smarter Than Hero

King of the Zombies (1941)
Starring: Dick Purcell, Mantan Moreland, John Archer, Joan Woodbury and Henry Victor
Director: Jean Yarbrough
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Mac (Purcell), Bill (Archer), and Jeff (Moreland) are forced to land on a mysterious island after their plane runs low on fuel. Here, they find a mysterious family who aren't at all what they seem... and who are the center of a Nazi cult of undeath.


"King of the Zombies" is one of those movies that you should not show to your ultra-liberal, hyper-PC friends. Their heads will explode when Moreland (as Jeff, friend and loyal servant to adventuresome pilot, Mac) starts in on his stereotypical, subserviant negro comedy routine--a character that was typical in this sort of film through the mid-1940s.

There's a difference here, however. Unlike most films where the black comic relief character is a cowardly goof who needs the guidance and protection of the dashing, capable white hero to get safely through the night, it's actually Jeff who recognizes the danger faced by the heroes. If Mac and Bill weren't a pair of racist jackasses, who dismiss everything that Jeff has to say without even the slightest bit of consideration, there would have been fewer lives lost as the trio struggles against the Nazi zombie master.

Unfortunately, I doubt the filmmakers were aware of this irony, either while reading the script, during shooting, or while assembling the final product. If they were, it goes unnoticed by any character in the film. Given the overall lack of quality in this too-slowly-paced, mostly badly acted low-budget part horror/part wartime propaganda film, I am almost certain the juxtaposition of the very clever black character against the dull-witted white heroes is a complete accident.

I can't really recommend "King of the Zombies", but I do think Mantan Moreland's performance is an excellent one, as he has great comedic timing and a whole raft of truly hilarious lines. The fact that Jeff ultimately emerges as the brightest character in the film is also something that's noteworthy, and I think it gives the film a unique twist.

Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection

Perhaps the very best entry in Universal's "Legacy Collection" of DVD multipacks compiling their classic monster movies in handsome, archive-quality packages, is the "Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection." In this post, I review the five films included in it and offer some brief commentary on the set in general.

"Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection" contains two of the great foundation stones of the horror movie genre--"Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein"--the two great classic movies directed by James Whale--the almost equally great sequels "Son of Frankenstein" and "Ghost of Frankenstein," and one the Wolf Man cross-overs, "House of Frankenstein." All five films are among the best of Universal's output from the 1930s and 1940s, and they're all films that lovers of classic horror films will want to have in their personal collections.

The Legacy Collection is even more worth having due to commentaries by film historians on the SAP tracks on "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein,"; two very excellent documentaries on the creation of the movies; the inclusion of the original theatrical previews of the films, the poster and still galleries; and the quirky little short film "Boo."



Frankenstein (1931)
Starring: Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, Mae Clark, Dwight Frye, and John Boles
Director: James Whale
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Henry Frankenstein (Clive), a true madman with dreams of "knowing what God felt like" when he created life, successfully animates a monster made from parts taken from several corpses. Unfortunately, abuse heaped on his creation by an idiot assistant (Frye) and Frankenstein's own missteps causes the creature (Karloff) to go bezerk and flee into the countryside. Soon, Frankenstein's Monster comes back to haunt him and those he cares about.


"Frankenstein" is one of the great monster movies that started the horror genre, so I feel a bit awkward about not liking it more than I do. I feel like I should be giving it a rating of 8 or 9, but all I feel it deserves is a low 7.

That is not to say that the film doesn't have some great moments. Boris Karloff gives a great performance as the creature who is clearly yearning for the sort of comforts every human being wants, but receives nothing but abuse. It's truly the only film portrayal of the Monster that made me feel sorry for it. The sets are also spectacular, the lighting and camerawork fantastic, and all the actors give excellent performances (but Karloff truly excels).

Where the film doesn't work for me is on the level of script and character interaction. I find it impossible to believe that Frankenstein's fiance Elizabeth (Clark) would want to go with a walk in the park with Frankenstein after the raw, total madness she witnessed when he brought his creature to life,and I find it even harder to believe that their mutual friend Victor (Boles) wouldn't be doing everything in his power to keep her from the marriage. I understand that horror movies Back In The Day tended to move rather swiftly along as far as characters go, but the lack of reaction to Henry's insanity really ruined the entire picture for me.

I think this movie is a must-see for anyone who considers themselves a film-buff or a fan of the horror genre, as it (along with "Dracula" and "White Zombie") set many of the ground-rules for horror films that persist to this day. However, as gorgeous a film as it to look at, as great as all the actors are, it suffers from some major story issues that may get in the way of your enjoyment.



Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Colin Clive, Valerie Hobson, Ernest Thesiger, and Elsa Lanchester
Director: James Whale
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

As monster-maker Henry Frankenstein (Clive) is recovering from the near-fatal injuries he received at the hands of his monstrous creation, he is approached by the sinister Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger). Pretorius is a mad scientist, who, like Frankenstein, is obsessed with creating life. He has allied with Frankestein's creation (Karloff) in order to force Frankenstein to create a mate for it, so that Pretorius may learn Frankenstein's techniques. Frankenstein must create this other creature, or his own wife (Hobson) will be killed.


"Bride of Frankenstein" is presented as a direct sequel to the 1932 film "Frankenstein", but is somewhat divorced from that movie. First off, it's set up like a fictional story being told by Mary Shelley (Lanchester). Second, the film has a higher comedy element than the original. Third, a number of characters are somewhat different than they were in the first film, with Frankenstein being less of a complete lunatic, who actually wants to give up the whole monster-making gig until Pretorius and Frakenstein's Monster force him to make a mate for the original creation; and Frankenstein's Monster, who has grown in intellect while wandering injured in the wilderness.


What remains the same, however, is the tragic quality of the Frankenstein's monster. While the monster commits acts of genuine evil--where in "Frankenstein", he was mostly acting out of ignorance or self-defense--these are balanced by the presentation of the monster as a deeply lonely, unhappy creature who has no place in, purpose in, or connection with God's creation. The fundementally tragic nature of Frankenstein's creation, and the fact that the most evil players in the story are Frankenstein and Pretorius, has never been driven home in any other Frankestein film than in the final ten minutes of "Bride of Frankenstein." That final reel is one of the greatest horror sequences to ever appear on screen.

"Bride of Frankenstein" is also remarkable for the amazing sets and camera work. The fantastic use of lighting and quick cuts, and the twisted angles in the buildings serve to underscore both the horror and some of the scenes of absurd humor in the film.



Son of Frankenstein (1939)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Josephine Hutchinson, Edgar Norton and Boris Karloff
Director: Rowland Lee
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Wolf von Frankenstein (Rathbone) returns with this family to his ancenstral home in the hopes of rehabilitating his father's name. His high hopes soon turn to bitter ashes as the villagers refuse to give him a chance--except for the police captain (Atwill) who has more cause to hate the Frankenstein name than any of the others--and he is soon drawn into a sinister scheme launched by psychopathic former assistant of his father (Lugosi) to restore the Frankenstein Monster (Karloff) to life.


"Son of Frankenstein" is one of the true classics among horror films. As good as "Frankenstein' and almost as good as "Bride of Frankenstein", it features a top-notch cast, great camera-work, fantastic sets, and a story that's actually better constructed than any other of the Universal Frankenstein movies.

Particularly noteworthy among thge actors are Bela Lugosi and Basil Rathbone. Lugosi is gives one of the best performances of his career, and as I watched, I once again found myself lamenting that he didn't do more comedic roles than he did. He manages to portray the crippled Ygor as funny, pitiable, and frighteing, showing greater range in this role than just about any other he played. The funny bits show a fabulous degree of comedic timing that Lugosi only had the opportunity to show on few other occassions. Rathbone is also excellent, as the high-minded dreamer who is driven to the edge of madness by frustration, fear, and guilt. (He may be a bit too hammy at times, but he's generally very good.)

Lionel Atwill is also deserving of a praise. I think he is better here in his role as Krogh than in any other film I've seen him in. In some ways, "Son of Frankenstein" is as much Krogh's tale as that of Wolf von Frankenstein so pivotal is his character to the tale, and so impactful is Krogh's eventual confrontation with the monster that tore his arm off as a chld. Atwill also manages to portray a very intelligent and sensitive character--perhaps the most intelligent character in the entire movie.

One actor that I almost feel sorry for in this film is Boris Karloff. The monster has very little to do... except lay comatose and go on mindless rampages. ANYONE could have been in the clown-shoes and square-head makeup for this film, because none of the depth shown in the creature in the previous two movies is present here. (While the whole talk about "cosmic rays" and the true source of the creature's lifeforce is very interesting, the monster isn't a character in this film... he's just a beast.)



The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942)
Starring: Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Bellamy, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Lon Chaney Jr, and Evelyn Ankers
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

The evil Ygor (Lugosi) resurrects the Frankenstein Monster (Chaney) and forces the second son of Baron Frankenstein (Hardwicke) to "fix him." Frankenstein resolves to give the monster the mind of a decent man, but Ygor and Frankenstein's jealous collegue (Atwill) have other ideas.


"The Ghost of Frankenstein" is a good, workman's like horror flick. The sets are decent, the acting is good, and the script moves along briskly and makes sense (within the context of manmade monsters and full brain-transplant operations). However, the film lacks the style and atmosphere of the previous three films in the series. Gone are the sets with the disturbing angles and sharp shadows. We've also got more subdued, more realistic acting on the part of the cast--and this is a great shame as far as Lugosi's Ygor character goes. Virtually all the humor and quirkiness that made this such a great character in "Son of Frankenstein" is gone, although there is still plenty of menace here.

Speaking of menace, a strong point of this film is that the Monster is actually put to good use story-wise, and the demand he places on Frankenstein is truly monstrous. It's not the character we saw in either "Frankenstein" or "Bride of Frankenstein", but it is an evolution that makes sense; it's as if the Monster wants a fresh start, but that the evil influence of Ygor has leeched away even the slight decency he showed in "Bride."

This may not be the high point of classic horror, but it's a fun flick and one you'll be glad you saw.



House of Frankenstein (1944)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr, J. Carroll Naish, John Carradine and George Zucco
Director: Erle C. Kenton
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

After escaping from prison, mad scientist Gustav Niemann (Karloff) sets out to gain revenge on those who helped imprison him, and to find the notes of the legendary Dr. Frankenstein so he can perfect his research. Along the way, he accidentially awakens Dracula (Carradine) and recruits him to his cause, as well as uncovers the frozen bodies of Frankenstein's Monster and Larry Talbot, the unfortunate wolfman (Chaney) and and revives them. Cue the torch-wielding peasant mob.


"House of Frankenstein" is one of three movies released in the 1940s that featured the latest addition to Universal's monster pantheon, the Wolf Man, teaming up with/battling the studio's two monster greats, Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster. As such, it is a sequel not only to "Ghost of Frankenstein," but also to "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man."

So, if you're confused about how the Monster from the fiery pit at the end of "Ghost of Frankenstein" to the ice floe here, you didn't skip a movie--events transpired that aren't found in this set. (I'll have more to say about the editorial choices made by Universal in compling the packages that make up the Legacy Collection when I post about "The Wolf Man: The Legacy Collection," but the bottom line is that I think "House of Frankenstein" should not have been included in this set as it's more of a Wolf Man movie than part of the Frankenstein's Monster series.)

"House of Frankenstein" unfolds in a very episodic way, with the part of the film involving Dracula feeling very disconnected from what comes before and what comes after. The main storyline sees Karloff's mad doctor questing for revenge while preparing to prove himself a better master of brain-transplanting techniques than Frankenstein, and the growing threat to his cause by his repeated snubbing of his murderous assistant (Naish). The whole bit with Dracula could easily be left out, and the film may have been stronger for it.

This is a very silly movie that is basically a parade of gothic horror cliches--I thought maybe I was having some sort of hallucinatory flashback to my days writing for the "Ravenloft" line--but it moves at a quick pace, and it features a great collection of actors, has a nifty musical score, and features great sets once the story moves to the ruins of Castle Frankenstein.

"House of Dracula" is one of the lesser Universal Monster movies--it's not rock-bottom like the mummy films with Lon Chaney, but it's almost there. The film is, to a large degree, elevated by the top-notch performers and it's almost too good for what they give it. (But it is interesting in a breaking-the-third-wall sort of way to see the actor who started the series as Frankentein's Monster come back to it in the role of a mad scientist.)

If you would like to add these films to your own collection, they are avaiable on DVD for reasonable prices at Amazon.com. The best value is, naturally, the "Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection." Click on the cover images below for details.

The Mummy Legacy Collection

Universal's 1932 "The Mummy" remains one of the best mummy movies ever made. If you're a film buff and haven't seen it--even if you're not a particuarly big fan of horror--you have a great experience in store.

The "sequels" from the 1940s go from mediocre to downright awful, but even they have a certain charm. I put "sequels" in qoutes, because they are a series of films that have nothing to do with the original mummy movie, plotwise or tone-wise. However, these four cheesy follow-ons had a lot more to do with shaping the popular image of mummies in horror movies than the original film ever did.

All five of Universal Pictures' original mummy movies can be had in the handsome and very well put-together "The Mummy: The Legacy Collection," part of a series of six archive-quality DVD collections Universal issued a few years back. In addition to featuring a very informative commentary track from film historian Paul M. Jensen on the "Mummy," the set includes an equally informative documentary on the making of the film. (The four sequels are treated as "bonus features" and are on a double-sided disc along with previews for the films, while "The Mummy" gets the deluxe treatment it deserves.)

The original "The Mummy" is a film you're going to watch over and over again; I pull it out at least once a year. At the bottom of this post, following my reviews of the films, there are links to several of the different editions it's been issued in, but the best value remains "The Legacy Collection."


The Mummy (1932)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners and Edward Van Sloan
Director: Karl Freund
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

After an archeologist accidentally restores him to life, a cursed ancient Egyptian high priest Imhotep (Karloff) sets about likewise reviving Princess Anckesen-Amon for whom he gave up everything so they can resume their forbidden love. Unfortunately, she has been reincarnated, and her spirit is currently residing within Helen Grosvenor (Johann), the daughter of a British diplomat. Imhotep hasn't let the natural order of things stop him in the past, and he's not about to let it get in his way now.


"The Mummy" is perhaps the best, most intelligent mummy movie ever made. It's more of a gothic romance story set in Egyptian surroundings than a monster movie, with Imphotep trying to recapture a love that he lost 3,700 years ago.

The actors in this film are all perfectly cast, and they are all at the top of their game.

Karloff is spectacular, conveying evil, alieness, majesty, and even a little bit of tragedy in his character with a minimum of physical movement. (Unlike most mummy movies, Imhotep isn't a bandage-wrapped, shambling creature, but instead appears like a normal human being; he is still dried-out and somewhat fragile physically, though, and Karloff does a fantastic job at conveying this.)

Johann likewise gives a spectacular performance, particularly toward the end of the movie as Imhotep is preparing to make her his eternal bride, and she has regained much of her memories from when she Anckesen-Amon. Johann is also just great to look at.

The two remaining stars, Manners and Van Sloan, are better here than anything else I've seen them in. Manners in particular gives a fine performance, rising well above the usual milquetoast, Generic Handsome Hero he usually seems to be. (Even in "Dracula" he comes across as dull. Not so here.)

The cinematography is excellent and the lighting is masterfully done in each scene. Karloff's character is twice as spooky in several scenes due to some almost subliminal effects caused by lighting changes from a medium shot of Manners to a close-up of Karloff... and the scene where Imhotep is going to forcibly turn Helen Grosvener into an undead like himself is made even more dramatic by the shadows playing on the wall behind the two characters.


There are some parts of the film that are muddled, partly due to scenes that were cut from the final release verson, or never filmed. Worst of these is when Imhotep is interrupted during his first attempt at reviving Anckesen-Amon, and he kills a security guard with magic during his escape. However, he leaves behind the spell scroll that he needs for the ritual. Why did he do that? It's a jarring, nonsensical part of the movie that seems to serve no purpose other than to bring Imhotep into direct confrontation with the heroes. (The commentary track sheds light on what the INTENTION was with that devolpment, but it just seems sloppy and badly conceived when watching the movie. And I'm knocking a full Star off because it is such a badly executed story element.)

While "The Mummy" may be a bit slow-moving for people who are used to Brandon Fraser dodging monsters, it is a film that every cinema buff should see.


The Mummy's Hand (1940)
Starring: Dick Foran, Wallace Ford, Peggy Moran, George Zucco, and Tim Tyler
Director: Christy Cabanne
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A pair of hard-luck Egyptologists (Foran and Ford) discover the location of the long lost tomb of Princess Ananka. Unfortunately for them, an evil cult leader (Zucco) controls the immortal, tomb-guarding, tanna leaf-tea slurping mummy Kharis, and he's hot afraid to use him to keep the secret of the tomb.


More of an adventure flick with a heavy dose of lowbrow comedy than a horror film, "The Mummy's Hand" isn't even a proper sequel to the classy 1932 "The Mummy."

This movie (and the three sequels that follow) are completely unrelated to the original film, despite the copious use of stock footage from it. The most obvious differences are that the mummy here is named Kharis, as opposed to Imhotep, and has a different backstory. Then, there's the fact he's a mindless creature who goes around strangling people at the bidding of a pagan priest where Imhotep was very much his own man and did his killing with dark magics without ever laying a hand on his victims.

If one recognizes that this film shares nothing in common with the Boris Karloff film (except that they were both released by the same studio), "The Mummy's Hand" is a rather nice bit of fluff. It's also the first film to feature the real Universal Studios mummy, as Imhotep was an intelligent, scheming, and more-or-less natural looking man, not a mute, mind-addled, bandaged-wrapped, cripple like Kharis.


The Mummy's Tomb (1942)
Starring: Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, John Hubbard, George Zucco, Dick Foran, Isobel Evans and Lon Chaney Jr.
Director: Harold Young
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Thirty years after the events of "The Mummy's Hand, the High Priest of Karnak from the last film (Zucco), who, despite being shot four times and pointblank range and tumbling down a very long flight of stairs, survived to be an old man. He passes the mantle onto a younger man (Bey) and dispatches him to America with Kharis the Mummy (Chaney), who survived getting burned to a crisp at the end of the last movie, to slay those who dared loot the tomb of Princess Anankha. (Better late than never, eh?)


Take the plot of "The Mummy's Hand" (complete with a villain who has the exact same foibles as the one from the first movie), remove any sense of humor and adventure, toss in about ten minutes of recap to pad it up to about 70 minutes in length, add a climax complete with torch-weilding villagers and a mummy who is just too damn dumb to continue his undead existence, and you've got "The Mummy's Tomb."

Made with no concern for consistency (Ford's character changes names from Jenson to Hanson, the fashions worn in "The Mummy's Hand" implid it took place in the late 30s, or even in the year it was filmed, and yet "thirty years later" is clearly during World War II... and let's not even talk about how the mummy and Zucco's character survived) or orginality (why write a whole new script when we can just have the bad guys do the exact same things they did last movie?), this film made with less care than the majority of B-movies.

Turhan Bey and Wallace Ford have a couple of good moments in this film, but they are surrounded by canned hash and complete junk.


The Mummy's Ghost (1944)
Starring: John Carradine, Ramsey Ames, Robert Lowery, George Zucco, and Lon Chaney Jr
Director: Reginald Le Borg
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Modern day priests of ancient Egyptian gods (Zucco and Carradine) undertake a mission to retrieve the cursed mummy of Princess Ananka from the American museum where she's been kept for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, they discover that the archeologists who stole her away from Egypt broke the spell that kept her soul trapped in the mummy and that she has been reincarnated in America as the beautiful Amina (Ames).


"The Mummy's Ghost" starts out strong. In fact, it starts so strong that, despite the fact that the priests who must be laughing stock of evil cult set were back with pretty much the exact same scheme for the third time (go to America and send Kharis the Mummy stumbling around to do stuff, that it looked like the filmmakers may have found their way back to the qualities that made "The Mummy" such a cool picture.

Despite a really obnoxious love interest for Amina (played with nails-on-a-chalkboard-level of obnoxiousness by Robert Lowery) and a complete ressurection of Kharis (boiling tannith leaves now apparently reconstitutes AND summons a mummy that was burned to ashes in a house-fire during "The Mummy's Tomb"), and a number of glaring continuity errors with the preceeding films (the cult devoted to Ananka and Kharis has changed their name... perhaps because they HAD become the laughing stock among the other evil cults), the film is actually pretty good for about half its running time. The plight of and growing threat toward Amina lays a great foundation.

And then it takes a sharp nosedive into crappiness where it keeps burrowing downward in search of the bottom.

The cool idea that the film started with (Ananka's cursed soul has escaped into the body of a living person... and that person must now be destroyed to maintain the curse of the gods) withers away with yet another replay of the evil priest deciding he wants to do the horizontal mambo for all enternity with the lovely female lead. The idea is further demolished by a nonsensical ending where the curses of Egypt's ancient gods lash out in the modern world, at a very badly chosen target. I can't go into details without spoiling that ending, but it left such a bad taste in my mouth, and it's such a complete destruction of the cool set-up that started the film, that the final minute costs "The Mummy's Ghost" a full Star all by itself.



The Mummy's Curse (1944)
Starring: Peter Coe, Lon Chaney Jr, Kay Harding, Dennis Moore, Virginia Christine and Kurt Katch
Director: Leslie Goodwins
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A contruction project in Louisiana's bayou uncovers not only the mummy Kharis (Chaney), but also the cursed princess Ananka (Christine). Pagan priests from Egypt arrive to take control of both. Mummy-induced violence and mayhem in Cajun Country follow.

What happens when you make a direct sequel where no one involved cares one whit about keeping continuity with previous films? You get "The Mummy's Curse"!

For the previous entries in this series, Kharis was shambling around a New England college town, yet he's dug up in Lousiana. (He DID sink into a swamp at the end of "The Mummy's Ghost", but that swamp was hundreds of miles north of where he's found in this film.)

He also supposedly has been in the swamp for 25 years. For those keeping score, that would make this a futuristic sci-fi film with a setting of 1967, because the two previous films took place in 1942. (And that's being generous. I'm assuming "The Mummy's Hand" took place in 1912, despite the fact that all clothing and other signifiers imply late 30s early 40s.) Yet, there's nothing in the film to indicate that the filmmakers intended to make a sci-fi movie.

And then there's Ananka. Why is she back, given her fate in "The Mummy's Ghost"? There's absolutely no logical reason for it. Her ressurection scene is very creepy, as is the whole "solar battery" aspect of the character here, but it is completely inconsistant with anything that's gone before. And she's being played by a different actress--but I suppose 25 years buried in a swamp will change anyone.

There's little doubt that if anyone even bothered to glance at previous films for the series, no one cared.

Some things the film does right: It doesn't have the Egyptian priests replay exactly the same stuff they've done in previous films for the fourth time (although they are still utter idiots about how they execute their mission), it manages for the first time to actually bring some real horror to the table--Kharis manages to be scary in this film, and I've already mentioned Ananka's creep-factor--and they bring back the "mummy shuffling" music from "The Mummy's Ghost" which is actually a pretty good little theme. But the utter disregard for everything that's happened in other installments of the series overwhelm and cancel out the good parts.

"The Mummy's Curse" should not have been slapped into the "Kharis" series. If it had been made as a stand-alone horror film, it could have been a Six-Star movie. As it is, this just comes across as a shoddy bit of movie making where I can only assume that anything decent is more by accident than design.

The Invisble Man Legacy Collection

Over the past few years, Universal has been releasing some fantastic DVD collections, prime among these have been the "Legacy Collection" series. While I can quibble with some of the choices of what was included in a couple of the sets, there is no question that they have been dreams come true for fans of classic horror cinema.

One of these sets presented all five of the original "Invisible Man" movies from the 1930s and 1940s, some appearing here for the very first time on DVD.

The main attraction of the set is the original 1933 "Invisible Man" starring Claude Rains--which features an informative running commentary of historical facts about the film and its stars on the SAP track--but the "bonus features" are for the most part also films that any move buff will be delighted to see. (None of the four sequels from the 1940s rise to the level of greatness of the original film, but they also don't sink to the level of crapitude that the so-called sequels to "The Mummy" did.)

I review all five movies in the set in this post. You can get more information (as well as purchase information at Amazon.com) by clicking on the cover images at the very bottom of the post.


The Invisible Man (1933)
Starring: Claude Rains, William Harrigan, Una O'Connor, Gloria Stuart, Forrester Harvey and Henry Travers
Director: James Whale
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Chemist Frank Griffin (Rains) developes a formula that turned him invisible. He goes on a homicidal rampage in rural Britain after it also drives him insane.


"The Invisible Man" is another true classic from the formative years of the horror genre. It's quite possibly the first horror comedy and it's black humor holds up nicely even today--arrogant scientists, simple country bumpkins and incompetent cops never go out of style!

The film's special effects also hold up surprisingly well, with simple techniques employed here that were used over and over until CGI came fully into its own but rarely used as well as they were here. (Yes, there are a few places where one can see the matting, but the "invisible action" here is depicted better than it was in a film made 60 years later, "Invisible: The Chronicles of Benjamin Knight".)

And finally, the film has a literate, finely honed script with loads of tension that effectively translates the mood of H.G. Wells' original novel to the screen. The characters seem well-rounded and believeable, and this, even more than the special effects, make the movie such a pleasure to watch even now. The film even manages to capture the point about loss of identity resulting in loss of connection with the world around you and ultimatley insanity (even if the movie attributes Griffin's madness first and foremost to the chemical concoction he's created.)

Lovers of classy horror and sci-fi films owe it to themselves to check this one out. The same is true if you have an appreciation for dark comedies.



The Invisible Woman (1940)
Starring: Virginia Bruce, John Barrymore, John Howard, Charles Ruggles, Charles Lane, Donald McBride, Oskar Homolka and Shemp Howard
Director: A. Edward Sutherland
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A runway model (Bruce) volunteers to test an invisibility machine so she can get back at her abusive boss. Things get complicated when gangsters decide they want the machine for their own purposes.


"The Invisible Woman" was touted as a sequal to "The Invisible Man", but it has nothing in common with that movie... other than the word "invisible" in the title.

This film is a light comedy with some screwball elements and slight romantic touches. Everything is played for laughs and the film is perhaps even funnier now because of some of the outdated social attitudes on display in the film. (At the time, the solution to dealing with the problem of having to pick up a passed out naked woman was the source of humor, but today it's the fact that both John Barrymore and John Howard's characters were too gentlemanly to touch her bare skin is the funny part.)

"The Invisible Woman" is a charming piece of fluff featuring a fast-paced script and a cast of fine comedic actors. It's the odd (wo)man out in Universal's "The Invisible Man Legacy Collection", but it still adds value to the set.



The Invisible Man Returns (1940)
Starring: Vincent Price, Cedric Hardwicke, Nan Grey, Cecil Kellaway, John Sutton and Alan Napier
Director: Joe May
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A wrongly convicted man (Price) uses an invisibility serum to escape execution and find the murderer who framed him. But, even with the help of his loving fiance (Grey) and his loyal best friend (Sutton), can he track the killer before he is driven mad by the subtance that renders him invisible?


"The Return of the Invisible Man" is a well-conceived sequel. It's got significant ties to the original, retains some of the same basic themes, but presents a completely different and unique story. Too often, sequels either shoehorn connections to the film into the story in an artificial manner or have so little to do with the original that one wonders why a connection was even drawn (well, aside from naked greedy attempts to ride on the coat-tails of another film's success).

A well-scripted mystery is added to the invisible man shenanigans... and although it's a bit slow in getting started, it is a gripping tale once it gets going. The mystery isn't terribly hard to solve for those who like playing along--there really is only one suspect and the film never launches any serious attempt to divert the audience's attention from that villain. However, plenty of suspense arises from watching the invisible man start to lose his mind even as he indentifies his prey.

The great cast of the film is also to be credited with its success. Most noteworthy among the actors are Vicent Price lends his distinctive voice to the film's unseen protagonist, and Cecil Kellaway who appears in a rare dramatic role as the inscrutible Inspector Sampson of Scotland Yard.

The only complaint I have with the film are the invisiblity effects. Whether due to a lack of budget or creativity on the part of the director and special effects crew, there is nothing here as impressive as the cinematic tricks used to sell the presense of an invisible character on screen as was found in the original "Invisible Man" nor in the "Invisible Woman", a comedy dating from the same year yet featuring far more impressive effects. (Nothing in "The Invisible Man Returns" comes close to the bicycle stunt in "The Invisible Man" or the stockings scene in "The Invisible Woman".)

However, the solid story and excellent cast make up for the shortcomings in the special effects department.



Invisible Agent (1942)
Starring: Jon Hall, Cedric Hardwicke, Ilona Massey, Peter Lorre and J. Edward Bomberg
Director: Edwin L.Marin
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

After he is threatened by Axis agents, Frank (Hall) decides to put the invisibility formula invented by his grandfather to use in the War Effort. He parachutes into Germany, teams up with a beautiful allied spy (Massey) and sets about destroying the organizers of a Fifth Column operation in the United States (Hardwicke and Lorre).


"Invisible Agent" is the second real sequel to "The Invisible Man". It's also an average WW2 propaganda film that shows the the Axis to be as foolish, evil and treacherous as can be imagined, while the Allies are brilliant and right-minded. Sort of.

While the Nazis are as nefarious as possible--decietful, backstabbing Hitler-worshipping sycophantic cowards every last one of them--our hero is also a bit hard to root for. Frank, as the invisible super-spy, is either dumb as a post or the invisibility forumula has a different effect on him than it had on those how used it in "The Invisible Man" and "The Invisible Man Returns". Instead of turning into the sort of megalomaniac who would try to get to Hitler and replace him as the leader of the Riech (which Griffin from the original film would almost certainly have done), Frank instead plays pranks on the Nazis at inopportune times--endangering both himself and deep-cover double-agent Massey--and falls into deep, coma-like sleeps at even worse times. Is it the invisibility formula at work, is Frank a moron, or is it just bad writing? Whatever the explanation, the Invisible Agent isn't much of a hero to root for... unless you're a 13 year old (who are probably the target audience for the film).

The target audience might also be the reason why it feels like a couple of punches were being pulled in this movie. While the Nazis are definately decadent scum in this movie, their evil doesn't even come close to approaching that displayed in indepdent productions from the time like "Hitler, Dead or Alive" or "Beast of Berlin", films that share many thematic and propaganda-content elements to this movie. Either, the fantastic elements of an invisible spy led Universal to choose to target it at a younger audience--and thus toned down some of the more unpleasant aspects of the Nazis--or maybe the very fact that Universal was a major film studio and corporation with international interests even in the 1940s and the two other films I mentioned were made by small operations limited the studio's desire to make a film that savaged the Axis as fully as it deserved.

The film is fun enough and the invisible man effects are decent--as is the idea that the invisible man here chooses to make himself visible using cold cream and a towel draped over his head instead of somehow finding yards worth of bandages everywhere he goes. The actors also give good performances, with only Peter Lorre failing to convince; he plays a Japanese intelligence agent and he is about as unconvincing as I would be if cast in the part of a Somali pirate captain. I can only imagine how bad the "Mr. Moto" films must be....



The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944)
Starring: Jon Hall, Leon Erroll, John Carradine, Lester Matthews, Alan Curtis and Evelyn Ankers
Director: Ford Beebe
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A psychopath (Hall) is made invisible by an eccentric scientist (Carradine) and he sets out to get revenge on those he believes have wronged him.


Here's a film with decent special effects (or its time, and which are actually undermined a bit by the crystal clarity of the DVD transfer because you can see how some of them were done), with a good cast all giving decent performances, and a competent technical crew from the lighting, to the photography, editing, and musical score. Unfortunately, all these quality elements can't make up for the fact that the script is awful.

It might be that the kids in the matinee audience for whom this film must have been made wouldn't notice or care, but it bothered me that none of the principal characters were people you could root for or even care about--Robert Griffin (Jon Hall), the invisible man, is a crazy murderer from the outset, but whether his perception of old slights is true or not, when he does appear his old friend Sir Jasper Herrick (Lester Matthews) does everything short of killing him to get him out of the way, so this gives him a true grevience. With Griffin and Herrick both being scumbags, the audience has no one to be on the side of.

We might have found our heroes in tabloid reporter Mark Foster (Alan Curtis) and his girlfriend Julie (Evelyn Ankers), the daughter of Sir Jasper. but they have such limited screentime and arer so woefully underdeveloped that their presense in the film feel almost perfuctory and like items on a check list that were included just because they were on the list. ("We've got a maniac, so we need to have an intrepid journalist and a potential damsel in distress. Yeah, they don't do much in the story, but the forumla says they need to be there." (The irrelevancy of Ankers character is driven home completely by the fact that she doesn't even end up a damsel in distress... Griffin targets Foster in the films climactic scenes during the one time when the film manages to muster some real suspense and concern for a character in it.)

"The Invisible Man's Revenge" was the last of the inivisble man movies to be made in the 1940s, and it shows the studio probably should have called it quits after "The Invisible Agent". It's the weakest of the five movies included in the "Invisible Man Legacy Collection," but it's also the weakest. It also has no connection to 1933's "The Invisible Man," but instead goes an entirely different direction like "The Invisible Woman" did.