MovieChat Forums > Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) Discussion > I wish this was it's own thing, without ...

I wish this was it's own thing, without Abbott and Costello

posted 9 years ago by numberonecubsfan
41 replies | jump to latest

Just watched it for the first time. I was struck by how faithfully they stuck to the monsters, for the most part, despite the silliness. Ignoring continuity issues, of course. I feel like if you take out the wacky comedy duo and tool the story with more serious protagonists, you'd have a solid Universal monster crossover. Particularly if you got Van Helsing involved, and maybe one of Frankenstein's descendents working with Dracula instead.

[–] EmpireKing 9 years ago

It's great as it is. A comedy classic.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

Yeah because the franchise was boring full steam ahead with the two House films 

This is a far finer swan song to the monsters than either of those insipid mash-ups.

Get to steppin' fool.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

They were "brilliant" movies if your medical history includes a lobotomy.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

The plots of the House films could have been conceived in screenwriting courses for the mentally disabled.

This "dumbing down of the monsters" is pure hokum. The brilliance of A&CMF is that it played the monsters straight while Bud and Lou's antics supplied the comedy. It's one of the most successful horror/comedy hybrids, get over it.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

Complaining about continuity is idiotic and counter-productive since it wasn't sacrosanct where the House films were concerned...Talbot was cured of his curse in the first one yet he's back seeking one in the second. Dracula was killed in the first one yet he's mysteriously back the second time around with no explanation. House of Dracula also completely ignores the premise of The Wolfman by asserting that Talbot's condition is physiological in nature.

A&CMF probably just wanted to ignore everything that transpired in the previous two films because of their stupidity and start fresh...and it worked. We get Bela Lugosi reprising the role that made him famous in one of the most successful horror comedies of all time. The House films are brainless fun and nothing more. They're not canon where any of these characters are concerned and they serve best as reminders of how moribund the franchise had gotten by that point.

Haters like yourself and the addlepated OP can continue to bitch ad nauseum about A&CMF disrespecting the Universal monsters...luckily you're drowned out by the vociferous support for a movie that stands tall.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

He was resurrected in Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. Dracula was resurrected in House Of Frankenstein.

None of that has anything to do with House of Dracula, which completely ignores or forgets the fact that they met their demises in the previous film.

Seriously, your argument sucks if continuity is one of its fortifying pillars. Just admit and accept the fact that A&CMF isn't guilty of doing anything that House of Dracula didn't do.

As for Lugosi returning that was only because John Carradine had some legal problems and they were set to offer Ian Keith the role but because Lugosi by this point was a drug addict and near broke they decided to cut a few costs and offered him it.

And?

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

As I said the House movies were a bit loose with continuity but not as retarded as this one.

"A bit loose"...LOL. Explain the following to me:

- In HOD, how did Dracula show up after having been decimated by the rays of the sun in HOF?

- In HOD, how was the Wolf Man still moping around for a cure after having been killed by a silver bullet in HOF?

Face it, by the time HOD came around logic and continuity were completely abandoned so you can't use it as an attack against A&CMF.

Also in this one they made Talbot superhero when he was never was one.

HOD stipulated that Talbot's malady was physiological when the mythology behind his entire character revolved being bitten by a werewolf. How do you explain that one?

Also the battle between The Wolf Man and Dracula is the worst ever

At least we finally got to cherish, for the only time, Chaney and Bela interacting onscreen in their signature roles. That in and of itself makes A&CMF noteworthy. We got ZERO monster merging in either House film. How do you get all three of them in the same movie TWICE and fu_ck that up?

As for the Bela bit well you made it out this movie was a plus point with him back so I pointed out he was only back by default.

It was a plus...how we got him is inconsequential.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

House Of Dracula is unfairly attacked for continuity where this movie doesn't.

That's ironic, since the person who originally cried "Foul" in the name of continuity was, well, YOU.

How is Dracula still alive in this after being burned by the sun and why is Talbot The Wolf Man once again when he was cured in the previous movie.

We can ride this carousel all day. You can lampoon A&CMF for storytelling inconsistencies and I come right back at you with examples from HOD. There's nothing to be gained further from this line of discussion, ya folla?

I'm not saying doesn't have problems because it does but at least the movies were treated seriously and not dumbed down for comedy.

And here's the crux of the problem. Your issue really isn't with continuity, it's with the execution. In other words, if the movie had just jettisoned A&C and left the Monster content unchanged, you wouldn't be complaining...amiright?

Studios have learned from this movie because today they either stop making the movies or make for them for direct to DVD or TV or wait a good while and remake it from fresh. If they didn't then in 1990 Michael Myers would have been slapped and kicked by Eddie Murphy.

Easily the most asinine thing you said which, given the trove of treasures to be excavated in this thread, is no small feat. The glut of A&C Meet (insert random monster) that directly followed in its wake is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as is the booming popularity of the horror/comedy in subsequent decades. I'd also say that the concept of Freddy manipulating a non-thinking Jason to do his dirty work bears a strong resemblance to the Dracula/Monster plot point here (since you're clearly fanatical on this subject.)

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SeanJoyce 9 years ago

Yes my problem is Abbott & Costello are in this movie I watched this to see a horror

Yeah, that makes total sense watching an Abbott and Costello-billed movie expecting a horror film  Did you also watch The Bear expecting an aquatic life feature?

This movie could have been better than the House movies

It's exceedingly better, using every metric available. It's far more highly-regarded than the forgotten House films and that isn't up for debate.

Now after that movie they didn't know how to expand on it so they were smart they didn't throw in Adam Sandler and friends

That's because every person with an IQ in single digits could tell you that putting the talentless Adam Sandler next to Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees would be catastrophic unless it was 90 minutes of body dismemberment.

Now I like this film but for me the series ends at House Of Dracula.

And hopefully your bloodline ends with you. This is also where this "conversation" ends with me...I'm off to seek more "enlightened" communication so I can expunge this thread from memory. Hmm, I think I'll start at the dog park 

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

I watched this to see a horror

Oh, so then the problem is you. What on earth made you think a movie starring one of the greatest comic duos of all time would be a horror?

Can't stop the signal.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Uh huh. And yet, Abbott and Costello received top billing.

Did you honesty think it would be a horror?

That's a level of naïveté I didn't even know existed.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Bingo. Now you understand why Dracula, Wolfman, and the Frankenstein Monster did a comedy. They were branching out into another genre.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Lugosi, Chaney, and Strange were branching out.

The point is: it's your fault you. You fooled yourself thinking Abbott and Costello were doing a horror.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Fortunately, they were. Gave the movie more gravitas. Bela put Dracula on the map, and Chaney was the quintessential Wolfman.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Nah. Besides, the selling point was Abbott and Costello meeting the classic Universal monsters.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

Nah. Nothing wrong with it. Made for a funny movie combining two classic franchises.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

I have not, but I'm gonna now.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Many years ago.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] numberonecubsfan 8 years ago

This sure exploded in arguing since I last checked o_0

[–] bryanalexander110875 9 years ago

They did do it without Abbott and Costello. It was called House of Dracula.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

I liked it in spite of the fact that Costello's acting irritates me, but he was tolerable here. I agree that the movie would have been good as a solid horror too.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] wolverineland 8 years ago

Abbott and Costello are the greatest and this is their film. Most Universal Horror fans never include this film in their respective favorite Monster series anyway. Actually Lon Chaney, Jr. bitched that AACMF actually dumbed down the Universal Monster movies. Actually this movie reignited interest in these old films with new generations of kids and the advancement of television. When this film was made the Universal Horror era was over and the Western was taking over into the 50s.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]