The weakest of the series - Son of Frankenstein (1939) Discussion

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

Interesting. I consider it to be the best in the series, the two previous entries being too stiff for me to give them that much respect. The Monster comes across as more of a Kharis the Mummy-like puppet here than before or since. Of course, whenever played by Glenn Strange he has very limited mobility until the climax, found damaged and subsequently strapped to a lab table, so making that present or absent wasn't really an option in those films (unless you count the implication of his saying[!] "Yes, Master," to Dracula in Abbott and Costello Meet...").

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

reply

[–] cinefool 14 years ago

No, it's not the weakest if you're going to count "Ghost of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula" as part of the series. "Son..." is superior to either of them. But it is a comedown, after "Bride...", and it doesn't help that the film was rushed into production to capitalize on the new Horror Boom of late 1938.

The Monster is at a definite disadvantage here because Karloff insisted the Monster's speech, which he performed under protest in "Bride..." be removed, and because producer/director Rowland V. Lee put his emphasis on inventing the new lead characters, Wolf (Rathbone), Krough (Atwill), and Ygor (Lugosi). That was fine because those three actors developed neat, memorable characterizations, but yes, if you came to see Karloff's Monster, it's hard to not be a bit disappointed. Karloff was, I think, put off by the Monster's place in all this, and his lack of interest is pretty evident, at least until the climax where the Monster finds the slain Ygor.

But at least this film had Karloff as the creature, in an A-budget production. The next entry, "Ghost...", had the stone faced Lon Chaney Jr. lurching through a mediocre script in a programmer B-film, with the huge misstep of transferring Ygor's brain into the Monster's head, a misguided bit of skulduggery that would come back to haunt the series the next year when Frankenstein met the Wolf Man. They hired Lugosi to play the creature, blind and speaking as Ygor, just as at the finish of "Ghost...". But studio execs were dismayed at Lugosi's sightless, talking interpretation of the Monster, and chopped his role to bits, emasculating the character even further. And do I really even need to bring up "House of Frankenstein", and "House of Dracula"? Yes, I enjoy them for what they're worth, especially "HoF", but the Monster is reduced terribly in both of those films. Compared to what was to follow, the creature is the essence of stateliness and dignity in "Son of Frankenstein".

reply

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

Cinefool: As far as Frankenstein's monster is concerned, other than the post-production tampering to both the original (tacking on a happy outcome for Henry, which was removed from all pre-TV reissues because Whale's sequel ignored it) and FMtW (as you described), the continuity is quite tight from one film to the next. Consequently, I don't understand qualifying considering GoF and HoD (and by inevitable logical extension, the intervening films FMtW and HoF) parts of the series with "if." Otherwise, well put.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

reply

[–] cinefool 14 years ago

tbritteid,

Perhaps I phrased that opening sentence awkardly. I think it took me aback for the OP to offer the notion that "Son.." was the weakest film in a series that included "Ghost..." and "House of Dracula". Maybe I should have asked if he meant the series of three films starring Karloff as the Monster, in which case I could agree that "Son...", while a very good and entertaining effort, is the weakest of those three, imo. Obviously, the other films with the Monster constitute being part of the same ongoing series, although there has been some debate over the years whether 1948's "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" should be included. I always thought so, especially since Gregory Mank does so in his fabulous book on the Universal Frankenstein films, though I can see the point of view of those who differ.

reply

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

Oh, yeah, I see. The weakest of Karloff's "series." Definitely makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. (Looking at this in Preview mode, I can see how it just might come across as sarcasm, which is not at all my intent, but I can't come up with a better way to phrase it; sorry, and I hope I don't sound paranoid.)

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

reply

[–] PeterBlues 14 years ago

i'm not sure i agree that it's the weakest, this sequal seemed to be mostly about showing these monsters togheter, though they never really are togheter. i liked boris karloff in the main role though, and an interesting part is that he doesn't play the monster here.

i knew something was off,
now i cought up on your job,
i was fooled all the way,
but i found out the truth today,
after so many times,
many confusions came by,
but now i've busted you,
and i'll no longer be fooled.

reply

[–] irishtom99 14 years ago

bride of frankenstien was practically camp..una oconnor as comic relief,the blustering burgermiester,ernest thesiger lisping his way through a borderline anti-semetic performance,elsa lancaster's bizzare hairstle as the bride,the
self-important poets rolling their R'S in the prologue..
son of frankenstien created legitimate tension,as wolf struggled between atoning for his father and trying to justify him as well..the characters of ygor and krogh have become iconic and can stand on their own..the finale,with krogh battling the monster while losing his artificial arm and wolf reeling through the sky on a rope to knock the monster into the sulpher pit while mom and amelia bang on the blocked door,is choreagraphed as well as any ending i've seen...great sets and lighting,great music,wonderful set pieces(the game of darts,ygor confronting the jury,wolf first sighting the monster,the sea of umbrellas turning their backs on wolf)this wasnt just a great horror film,it was a great FILM ,period..rathbone,karloff,lugosi and atwill all in the same film!!what else could you want..sorry the OP didnt like it,different strokes and all that,but as for bride of frankenstien,outside of the touching scene with the blind hermit and the scary escape scene from jail,i feel whale showed a lack of seriousness about the subject..

reply

[–] clivey6 14 years ago

I have to agree with irishtom. I couldn't get on with Bride of... at all, it seemed quite flippant and a rehash of the first film. Son of... isn't great; the first 40 mins we're just waiting for the Monster to show (and where are the wife and kid?) but when he does it's fine, mainly thanks to the social tension between the scientist and Ygor, his (in)subordinate, and also the police inspector.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 14 years ago

IMO Ghost of Frankenstein is the weakest, while Son is a very acceptable successor to Whale's masterpieces.

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 14 years ago

This is my personal favorite of all the Universal horror films, I love it, it's a bit longer then usual, Karloff is still great and the new lead Frankenstein is good, but the show is stolen by Inspector Krogh and Igor.

This film is why I love classic Universal horror.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

[–] movienerd666 14 years ago

i wouldn't say "weakest" its definitely the least epic (until the climax), it is also slower paced than the other two and the difference in tone to the first two movies was rather off putting at first, but i find it entertaining enough, "Bride" is the best one, on my opinion, but this one is definitely a worthy successor

you know there is a problem when games are smarter than movies

reply

[–] plwblj 14 years ago

I agree;

weakness is the wrong term and i would rather propose that this 3rd entry "stands on its own."

It has a certain modernity to it though obviously it is Gothic on sight.

Bela's Igor supercedes easily anything that Dwight Frye might have done in the first 2.

Lionel Atwill is awfully potent in his role and quite memorable.

The visuals are a highwater mark.There is that smartness which lends itself to cinematography : it certainly possesses "that look."

Rathbone does a credible job;even the butler is fine in his distinct portrayal.

The wife is attractive and Boris has a certain menance i haven't seen before.

Lee the director gets thumbs up from me as well.

All in all,a wonderful piece of horror art & wistful melodrama.

reply

[–] bnwfilmbuff 8 years ago

Excellent summary! I will add that it introduces the wonderful music track that would accompany many of the Universal 1940s Horror films. This, like the earlier Frankenstein installments, stands on its own as a marvelous horror film.

reply

[–] irishtom99 12 years ago

wouldnt change a thing

reply

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

I love this movie. In truth it has probably emerged (after viewing all three many times) as my favorite to watch. Mostly because of Bela Lugosi and Lionel Atwill. Both wonderful. That being said, I agree with the OP that it is probably the weakest of the series from an artistic standpoint. But that doesn't mean it's not a great film to watch.

reply

[–] InfernoJones 11 years ago

You can count me in with those who think SoF is a strong entry, and, I have to admit to trying my best to like and appreciate BRIDE...but I don't.

Somebody described BRIDEoF as campy...and that's how I feel about it, too.

After the original, SoF is the most memorable for me; Ygor and Inspector Krogh make it so. *I LOVE this one!*

*******

reply

[–] Mightygill 9 years ago

I find it unbelievable that somebody would find this to be the best of the series but everybody has different opinions.

I enjoyed the original but I had to watch it keeping in mind it's from 1931. Credit to it for creating the look of the Frankenstein monster most people think of when they hear the name "Frankenstein" and Colin Clive was also great as the scientist. Watching it today, though, it's difficult to overlook some of the editing issues and the cheap looking outdoor set from the finale.

Bride, in my opinion, is the best by a landslide (of the three I've seen). Everything from the look of the film, the sets, the score, and the characters is far superior to the others and doesn't have to be viewed as a 30s movie to be highly entertaining. It's also the only one that adds depth to the monster other than being a mindless killer.

Son is by far the weakest. I like the Ygor character but he's fleshed out at the expense of having an interesting Frankenstein monster. Rathbone was passable as the scientist but wasn't nearly as interesting as Colin Clive's character. I found the child to be annoying and the sets (with the exception of the library and child's room) looked rather cheap. The story itself wasn't as interesting as the first two which makes the overly long runtime even worse

Check out my blog www.mghorrorshow.blogspot.ca

reply

[–] dla_one 8 years ago

Yeah I agree, I have no idea why so many people seem to like this one. It is by far the weakest of the first three films. I would even rank the "House" movies higher. Like you say the Ygor character is good and Lugosi plays him well, but it's definitely at the expense of the monster. There has to be less time of the monster going around wreaking havoc in this movie than any other Frankenstein movie. In fact it seems like the film makers were aware of this as there is a stupid scene in the middle of the movie with the monster just pointlessly bumbling around the laboratory doing nothing of interest for no apparent reason other than to give him a little more screen time.

The first movie is a landmark achievement in horror that still shocks today. Bride is campy but like you say, looks bloody fantastic, its another monumental achievement for james whale. This movie is worth watching for fans, it does have three genre greats with Lugosi, Karloff, and Rathbone, but it's clearly the worst of the bunch.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] strangenstein (683) 3 years ago

I like Son of Frankenstein, but I’ve always felt it’s about 15 minutes too long. The lead up to discovering the monster is solid, and reviving him is well done. However, once he’s up and moving the movie becomes repetitive. Karloff does get a couple of solid scenes, but his monster is used mainly as a prop. Rathbone’s rising hysteria belies his usually top-notch acting. There’s a lot of running back and forth, with similar scenes playing out. Some judicious editing could do wonders for the pacing, and almost nothing of consequence would be lost.

Just my .02.

reply

[–] liscarkat (16469) a year ago

"Son of Frankenstein" is my favorite of the first three movies.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6663) a year ago

It is definitely better than anything that came after it, but for me it's a step down from the first two films.

reply