Frankenstein - The Legacy Collection (Frankenstein / Bride of / Son of / Ghost of / House of)

I must be out of my mind. First, I've decided to review all 5 films at once. Second, I didn't give the set 5 stars; sacrilege here at amazon.com. But I'm not unreasonable, so I will rate each film individually just to make things clear. Don't forget, we have an obligation to let others know if their beloved films are getting treated properly on DVD; just keep that in mind. I'll first let you know what I thought of the films, and then, just for fun, we'll check the resumes of the various assistants.

-FRANKENSTIEN; PERSPECTIVE (5.5 STARS)
In the modern perspective, this can be a somewhat boring, unintentionally funny film. However, when I watched it I made a point of pretending I was in a 1932 theater with a bunch of people who have never seen a monster movie. This would be a mind blowing experience. Not only is there murder, the idea of dismemberment and playing God, but the source of everyone's fear is actually a sympathetic, mute character. I know this is not a new idea to you modern readers. Yet, in the context of its day, this was groundbreaking. A hand full of "Horror" films had been made before, but nothing quite as well put together as this. If you have doubts, watch 1931's "Dracula". Though considered a classic, it can be snooze inducing when compared to "Frankenstein". This film is actually pretty fast paced with some really cool visuals to drink in.

-ASSISTANT ONE; FRITZ IS THE PITZ
The first Doctor, on-edge Henry F., has suspect taste in assistants; no, not Ygor (that's how it's spelled BTW) but Fritz. I wonder how things might have gone had Fritz not dropped the "normal" brain. Of course, when viewed with modern sensibilities, the idea of reviving a brain soaking in formaldehyde is pretty ludicrous regardless of its criminal tendencies. But Fritz isn't done. It turns out he's a sadistic jerk and destroys whatever modicum of decency the "monster" had working. Nice going Henry.

-BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN; PERSPECTIVE (5.0 STARS)
"Bride" is a fan favorite of many. Improbably, it may have been a more groundbreaking film than its predecessor. "Bride" may have been the first "Horror" film with comedic intensions. The comedy it pulls off is still funny today. Despite this, the story might be more tragic and heart breaking. As you might know, the bride only shows up long enough to reject her blind date, but it's so "real" you always feel bad for the guy. As you may also have heard; another mad scientist exchanges notes with Henry. It turns out this guy can make tiny people, yet thinks reviving a cadaver is more exciting; what a putts! This knocks down bride just a hair below the original. The "Monster" says little but speaks volumes.

-ASSISTANT TWO; KARL, YOU LOOK A LOT LIKE FRITZ!
Of course, they are the same actor. Well Henry had nothing to do with this guy. Karl was the hired hunch of Dr. Pretorius (he of the little people). Once again, we get an assistant with questionable moral fiber and physical ability. Karl does not like to dig. As a result, the new Mad Doctor gets only the freshest of parts. Karl likes to play with fire; something the "Monster" does not quite appreciate. So why are we surprised when he goes berserk again? Way to go Pretorius.

-SON OF FRANKENSTEIN; PERSPECTIVE (4.5 STARS)
I give this film a lot of credit for at least moving to another level. No, not the story; but everything else. The growing budget is evident. The actors are less melodramatic and refined (mostly), the sets are more convincing and ambitious, and the camera work more sophisticated (if not so inventive). However, the "Monster" is becoming a monster; a barely human automaton. He shows signs of humanity but for the most part becomes a tool in a furry vest (don't ask me?). Wolf is Henry's Son (hence the title) and he's moving into Dad's old place. Not surprising, the town's folk aren't too happy. Lionel Atwill's "Inspector Krogh" nearly steals the show. In a very unintentionally funny moment, a very stressed-out Wolf shouts to the inspector in a very snappy way "WOULD YOU LIKE A DRINK... ...OR PERHAPS YOU'D CARE TO PLAY A GAME OF DARTS?" I laughed very hard. Anyway, the story really bogged down at times and they seemed to rush the finish (what, in one of these films?). Still, this film had enough going on to be included in "Young Frankenstein".

-ASSISTANT THREE; GOOD LOOKS ONLY GET YOU SO FAR!
Finally we get YGOR!! Bella Lugosi does a good job of bringing personality to this role. The problem is his personality is that of a conniving, self serving murderer. He actually gets the job because he's buddies with the "Monster". I normally don't go for nepotism, but hey, he has the requisite disfigurements so sign him up! I'll give Wolf a break; Ygor and the "Monster" are a package deal. Amazingly, it's Wolf who pushes things over the edge in this one.

-THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN; PERSPECTIVE (3.5 STARS)
Still good acting, music and sets but the story is getting nonsensical. While trying to maintain the historical legacy of the prior films, much is dispensed with or forgotten. You learn all too quickly that budget does not beget quality. Ygor is clearly the Boss again and wastes little time moving his agenda. He finds a reluctant but vulnerable Ludwig F., brother to Wolf. Boris Karloff opts out of the makeup and is replaced by Wolf Man Lon Chaney Jr. LC Jr. was always an, at best, middling actor. No surprise then that the guy we all came to see is a dud. In the end it is Lugosi who gets all the lines while LC gets to go "UUUUUUUUHH!" The ending is especially silly when you watch the final film. Despite its problems, Ghost is still entertaining on a less cerebral level.

-ASSISTANT FOUR; I'M BACK!!! EH HEH HEH!!!
Yea, it's Lugosi's Ygor again. Money talks and these films kept making it. So back come Lugosi's Ygor. He actually does a good job despite the dumb script. Anyway, he's the same guy as in the last film. Ironically, it's the assistant that's conscripting the services of the master now. Ludwig get's a big slap-down for actually believing anything Ygor says. Ygor continues the fine tradition of mucking up the best of intensions.

-HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN; MAKING "VANHELSING" LOOK COHERANT (2.5 STARS)
You'd think a film with the triumvirate of Euro-monsters would be awesome. What we get here is possibly the most incoherent mess I've seen since "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (which has obvious entertainment value). This film is basically divided down the middle. The first half might be the worst Dracula film ever and the second half might be the most inexplicable waste of film imaginable. Fortunately the acting and the sets were worth a peak anyway. We learn again that the budget should be spent on developing a good story first. Apparently tired of making money; Universal appeared bent on the destruction of the "Frankenstein", Wolf Man" and "Dracula" franchises in one fell swoop. It nearly worked. We do get to see them again in the fluffy, yet wildly entertaining Abbott and Costello flick; hardly an extension of the franchise.

ASSISTANT FIVE; I AM NOW THE MASTER...
Karloff returns as a guy who assisted Frankenstein (I'm not sure which one) and wants to continue the franchise. He has an assistant who is physically disfigured (surprise) and very strong but actually a nice guy (sound familiar? "Hunchback of Notre Dame"). Not surprisingly, the assistant's assistant starts all the trouble again. I don't blame him this time; His boss welched on the deal.

-THE DVD (3.5 STARS)
Unlike other reviews here, I had no troubles with the disk getting scratched. In fact, I have trouble removing it from the case. Though the pictures are in beautiful shape, I don't think it was packaged in the most honorable way. Putting 3 films on one disk is just cheap. Still, this is a worthy collection for those who like taking a leisurely trip back in time. For those who need gory, non-stop action and violence; I would pass.

"FRANKENSTEIN" is, without a doubt, the finest monster film Universal Studios ever produced. James Whale's unexpected masterpiece gave us art and pathos where one was only expecting a good scream. The frantic Collin Clive, furiously flailing just beyond the gray borders of sanity, contrasted with the child-like innocence of his spurned creation, moved me beyond reason at the tender age of nine. Twenty years later, I still feel the same way when viewing this film. Karloff's characterization, through grunts, hand gestures, and facial expressions, conveys more humanity than virtually any other character that has ever graced the silver screen. While a severe departure from Mary Shelley's novel, this film achieves its own status as legendary art, leaving itself etched upon our cultural consciousness for all time to come.

"BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN," while an amazing film in its own right, tends to get oversold, in my opinion. James Whale, frustrated that the movie-going public had taken his first film on such a surface level, attempted to re-emphasize the points he made the first time around, externalizing Dr. Frankenstein's conflict by introducing a second mad scientist to embody his obsession, exaggerating the monster's personality and innocence by giving him speech and allowing him to state these sentiments directly, and by providing blatant verbal ruminations about the issues raised in this film - issues of life and death, gods and monsters, loneliness and friendship, and even rage and thoughts of suicide. All of this wonderfully potent content was there in the first film, but Whale yells louder in "Bride," hoping someone will actually hear him this time. Even the highly memorable scene with the blind man in the hut is really just an echo of the dramatic ramifications of the monster's encounter with the young girl by the river in the first film. Brief moments of pleasure and happiness are inevitably destroyed by cruel fate. While "Bride" is still a superb film, especially with stronger, more brilliantly expressive shots than the first one and richer, more terrifying production value (especially towards the end, when the Bride is finally brought to life), I think it's a mistake to call this film superior to the original. When you look closely, it does little to actually raise the stakes or take the franchise to a new level.

"SON OF FRANKENSTEIN" was clearly the recipient of a surprising amount of effort on the part of the studio, but that effort didn't get it very far. In addition to the legendary Boris Karloff, Universal brought screen legend Basal Rathbone and Universal's own legend, Bela Lugosi (Dracula) to the project. Additionally, the director seemed to have a clear artistic vision for the film, utilizing a mixture of Modernism and Expressionism in his sets, lighting, and over-all shot composition, apparently attempting to depict the three disconnected worlds of the new Baron Frankenstein (modern, scientific, detached), the villagers (medieval, worn, cramped), and the old Laboratory (chaotic, asymmetrical, unnatural). Unfortunately, the script fails to deliver, giving us characters with fantastically intriguing potential, but ultimately no internal conflict nor character development. Nothing is ever truly at stake in this film beyond the lives of a few villagers and the freedom of Dr. Frankenstein. Whereas the first two Frankenstein films were intense character studies (one could even argue that, like the Incredible Hulk, Dr. Frankenstein and the monster represented conflicting aspects of the same person), there is absolutely no depth of character to be found in this film. Even Karloff, who gets thrown a bone with two short, emotional scenes that are almost entirely irrelevant to the plot, does not get to act until almost an hour into the film, and spends most of the remaining time as a thoughtless henchman serving another villain. Karloff, in his final appearance as the Frankenstein monster, is relegated to supporting cast in a franchise that should have been centered entirely upon his character. This is a decent film for a lazy Sunday viewing, but I would hesitate to call it memorable or even a worthwhile inclusion in this franchise. Side note: Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein" is based almost entirely upon this installment in the Frankenstein series.

"GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN" is, undoubtedly, the weakest installment in the Frankenstein series. By this point, the premise has completely lost its way, borrowing heavily from the previous film and practically ignoring the heavy themes, astonishing artistic value and, above all else, humanity contained in the first two films. In this uninspired tale, the Frankenstein monster, still befriended by Ygor (from the last film) has become far more casual about killing and terrorizing than in previous installments. Whereas the creature once sought understanding and only met violence with violence, he now kills whenever someone puts a hand on his shoulder or happens to be in his way. Perhaps this is a logical progression after so many disastrous encounters with people over the years, but director Eric Kenton fails to lend any sense of tragedy to this fact, treating the monster as a cold, viscous killer whose only redemptive quality is that he befriends children. Gone is any sense of the overwhelmingly earthy protagonist from the first two films. He truly has become little more than a monster. Perhaps I could have forgiven the film if that had been all the damage it dealt to such a beloved character, but it goes much further. By the end of the film (no spoilers here), the Frankenstein monster has been utterly ruined beyond salvation, surgically changed into a far more generic, dramatically void antagonist that was never going to earn another sequel. An otherwise brilliant franchise was stopped dead by one truly tasteless installment.

"HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN," the final film in this collection, is a surprisingly excellent installment. Boris Karloff is brilliant as the mad scientist, J Carrol Naish plays a stunningly sympathetic hunchback, and the writing and directing are both truly memorable. The problem is that this isn't a Frankenstein film. It's not even the team-up film it claims to be. A terribly executed Dracula appears in the first 30 minutes of the film (which are entirely irrelevant to the rest of the story), and the Frankenstein monster is literally animated in the last ninety seconds of the film. Beyond that, this is clearly a Wolf Man movie, continuing directly from the "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" film featured in the Wolfman Legacy Collection. It spends most of the film focused on Larry Talbot (The Wolfman) and does a tremendous amount to build upon and enrich his story in amazing ways, but it does not do the same for Dracula or the monster, both of whom seem tacked on without any artistic considerations, included merely for advertising purposes. It's saddening to consider how Karloff must have felt watching his legacy tarnish before his very eyes. That consideration aside, this is a very solid Wolfman film, but I absolutely wouldn't even bother with it unless you're a fan of Larry Talbot and have already seen "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman."

It's hard to deny that this is one heck of a collection, if only because it contains both the original "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" in one inexpensive volume, but I'd hesitate to view the addition of the other films as much of a bonus. Granted, there are those of us who recall these films with fond childhood nostalgia, but, if you're not already familiar with the three remaining films, then I wouldn't expect to be too impressed with them. Buy this collection in order to own two of the greatest horror stories ever shown on the big screen. Save the rest for an evening when you're feeling bored and morbidly curious.

I purchased this DVD set of frankensteins for my fiance. We both love it. It wasn't scratched or skipping at all. I would recommend this to others that love the classic scary movies.

This collection is a steal. With a commentary and a making-of documentary, I would cheerfully have paid the same price for only Frankenstein or Bride of Frankenstein. Instead, for the cost of one movie with a couple of extras, we get five movies, two commentaries, two making-of documentaries, promo ads, and a bunch of other bits and pieces. The first two movies are must-sees and the latter three are fun but non-essential.

Frankenstein: Arguably the most iconic horror movie ever made. There may be better horror movies but nobody matches make-up artist genius Jack Pierce's ol' flattop for a sheer "that's so cool" effect. Frankenstein made Boris Karloff a star. Groundbreaking cinematographer (Frankenstein, Invisible Man, The Big Trail, All Quiet on the Western Front, Maltese Falcon, & Casablanca) lends his talents & does as much as anyone to create the perfect aura of creepy dread. The sets are perfect and the acting is excellent. The movie explores nothing less than the very nature of creation and life. James Whale made the brilliant decision to portray the monster sympathetically as a tormented outsider who can't help who he is or what he does. Whale was the consummate English gentleman, an artist and a gay man in a straight world. He knew all too well what it was like to be an outsider.

Bride of: Whale didn't want to make the sequel to the immensely popular Frankenstein. Been there done that. He finally relented when he was allowed script imput and complete autonomy in direction. The result is a fascinating, controversial and daring blend of dark humor, deliberately camp acting, pathos, horror & veiled references to religion, homosexuality, necrophilia and gender bending. The artist Whale poured himself into this effort and the film reads as the surface of his soul. The result is one of the greatest American movies ever made. Karloff is back as the monster and actually has dialogue, making him much more "human" and his plight more touching. Ernest Thesiger gives the role of his 50 year career as the outrageously fey mad scientist Dr. Pretorius.

Son of: We're in sequel territory here. No more Whale and a retread script. However, the third installment is pepped up considerably by the "Three B's", as I call them. Boris Karloff in his last turn as the monster, Bela Lugosi as the broken-necked hunchback Ygor, and Basil Rathbone plays the title character the same year he made his first Sherlock Holmes movie. Not a great movie but plenty of fun.

Ghost of: Neat to have Bela Lugosi back but, aside from a few nice touches here and there, there's not much to get excited about in this series flick. Cedric Hardwicke gives a particularly stiff performance as the new Frankenstein. Maybe he should have played the monster.

House of: The more the merrier. Frankenstein's monster, Wolfman and Dracula. There's even a subplot of a hunchback falling in love with a beautiful gypsy girl. Gorgeous scream queen Anne Gwynne (the most popular WW2 pinup model ever) lends her, um, talents. Lots of goofy, inane fun.

The films themselves are phenomenal, timeless, and light years beyond the pseudo-horror flicks of today, especially Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein.

However I strongly advise you NOT to buy the Legacy Collection DVDs. I ordered them and had to return them THREE TIMES because they arrived loose in the package and were scratched up. Very frustrating and disappointing. Apparently others have had the same problem with this collection. The manufacturer is obviously not reliable.

So I'm just going to buy all the Frankenstein movies separately, and I would suggest that you do so as well. (Of course you could buy this collection and it may very well arrive in perfect condition).

But after arriving damaged three times in a row I will throw in the towel and just buy them separately.