I'm probably being obstinate about this - In other threads about remakes, I've said over and over that newer versions of films don't make the old ones go away, they are still there to watch forever. I should maybe take my own advice.
Wonder what it must have been like seeing it in a big to do theater for the first time in '31. The original is still wonderfully creepy.
It scored an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. Hard core Burton fans seem to not like it as much, and prefer the 1984 version.
James Rolfe's review of the entire classic Universal series: I almost forgot how messed up some of the continuity is between these films! Still, they're great movies and I really should dig out my old DVDs for a re-watch.
Thanks, I watched that last night and it reminded me what a load of garbage most of the Universal movies were! "Frankenstein" is terrific of course. Wiki tells me that it was in fact an adaptation of the play written by Paggy Webling. It does have an "old theatre" style, making it a little cheesy but it has a magical quality (and Karloff) which saves it. "Bride Of Frankenstein" is fabulous and it's great to see Karloff come into his own with dialogue and feelings (an aspect cruelly missing from all the following films in the series). Unfortunately, the camp Dr. Pretorious gets on my nerves and I never liked the silly, Disneyesque scene with his miniature creatures. A pity that we didn't get to see more of the Bride also but it's at least more than she appears in Mary Shelley's book, where she is destroyed before even coming to life. "The Son Of Frankenstein" was if nothing else a good vehicle for the dashing but oh-so-serious Basil Rathbone. Great sets and photography and a pretty good movie overall but just too few scenes with Karloff to make it essential viewing. What a missed opportunity. It would have been great to have seen the more lucid creature come back and face the son of his creator. The rest of the series is just plain awful with hammy performances from all concerned. I've had no desire to watch them again since I discovered them on late night TV in the late 60s/early 70s. The Hammer series handled the creature very poorly also and I've never been a fan of the dashing and oh-so-serious Peter Cushing either!
Its interesting that you have a passion for everything Frankenstein but for the most part don't seem to like the Universal or Hammer series. Are there other films you like more or do you focus more on fiction and other things?
I think A&C Meet Frankenstein really was the best of those later batch of movies. Bringing back Lugosi was great (never really like Carradine in the role). The rest really came across as B-movies compared to the 1st three.
Well I loved the book and the first two Karloff Universal movies but not any of the Hammer Frankenstein series (being allergic to Cushing). Apart from that the original novel has never really been adapted satisfactorily in my opinion. Kenneth Brannagh's film misfired despite looking pretty good. A pity he didn't make a better movie of it. The 2004 TV mini series by Kevin Connor was pretty good and I quite liked the Bernard Rose's modern reading from two years ago. I head great hopes for Paul McGuigan's Victor Frankenstein and it was great fun but just too bonkers. As I said earlier here, I would have loved to have seen Danny Boyle's stage adaptation and I'm waiting for the video montage to appear one day on TV or DVD.
I was with you until the end Jim. I find Son of Frankenstein a worthy completion to the first great trilogy in popular cinema. I also love Hammer's treatment in Curse of Frankenstein (with Revenge also being a worthy, but lesser entry). Cushing is fantastic, and it was very clever to focus more on him than the monster.