Karloff vs. Lugosi

[ClassyCo]

I don't think I've ever seen the THE INVISIBLE MAN in its entirety, and I've never really wanted to. Now, I'm a bit intrigued.

I seriously doubt you'd be disappointed in THE INVISIBLE MAN, which is a downright good movie on its own merits. Claude Rains is a standout as a strong voice actor for such a complex individual as Jack Griffin.​

I like THE WOLF MAN. I don't think it's top tier Universal Horror -- it's not on par with DRACULA; FRANKENSTEIN; or BRIDE OF -- but it's better than most of the later silly entries in the cycle. It's not much of a story, but at least it's briskly paced and stylishly filmed. The cast is mostly excellent, with Claude Rains, Lugosi and Ouspenskaya standing out. And then there's Lon Chaney, Jr. While I will concede he was better as the Wolfman than as Dracula, the Monster or the Mummy, he was still not very good. He was a lumpy actor devoid of charisma or noticeable talent. The only interesting thing about him was his name; and even that was bogus. At least once he had the makeup on, he played the Wolfman with some snarly energy, but he was mopey and dull in his scenes as a human.

Oh, I enjoyed THE WOLF MAN too, but just not as much as THE INVISIBLE MAN. I'd agree that Lon Chaney Jr. looked quite iconic in his Wolf Man get-up, but he just seemed a little out-of-place in his other scenes. Claude Rains was excellent, and Lugosi's little bit seemed to be a nod to the audience and fans of Universal fright films. He even played a man called "Bela" in the film.

THE WOLF MAN also had some good, spooky camera work. The scenes in the woods that take place at night were quite good, and the initial shot of Chaney as the Wolf Man has got to rank up there near the top of all-time horror movie reveals.​

 

[Crimson]

This year's theatrical re-releases of the classic Universal films are double features of THE MUMMY (1932) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) on October 1st, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943) on October 29.

I will definitely be going to the first, but I'm indifferent to CREATURE and PHANTOM.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

1943's PHANTOM is the least phantom-y PHANTOM.

 

[Crimson]

I'm not even sure I've seen the 1943 PHANTOM, at least not in its entirety. Claude Rains was a great actor but its always seemed a missed opportunity that Universal didn't give the Phantom role to Karloff or Lugosi; but, then, in 1943 the part would more likely have gone to Chaney Jr, so grateful for that at least.

 

[ClassyCo]

CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954)

It's the movie Marilyn Monroe and Tom Ewell see in THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH (1955) right before she stands over the subway grating and her white skirt flies in the air.

For that reason alone, I've always been interested in watching CREATURE. We watched it with my sisters-in-law several weeks ago, and we all really enjoyed it. It's a fluffy, B-movie sci-fi outing, but it was good for what it was. We're going to watch the sequels one of these days.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

LAGOON is kind of fun in that stark, stripped-down '50s kind of horror film type of way -- what with that unsubtle music score... Beats '43's PHANTOM any day, IMO.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Lugosi v Karloff the winner is... Both!!!
Both actors were so memorable and iconic.
See the movie "Ed Wood" where Martin Landau, as Lugosi gives a superb performance,
and see his reaction when a fan refers to him as Karloff's sidekick!
Point of Trivia. While Lugosi played several vampire characters on film,
the only other time he played Count Dracula on film was "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein"
I think that Karloff was offered the role of the monster but he declined. Too Bad.

Other iconic Horror actors would include Lon Chaney, John Carradine, Glenn Strange (also Sam the Bartender on Gunsmoke),
Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Claud Raines to name a few.

Thanks to all of them for providing so many memorable performances!

More trivia
"Dracula v Frankenstein" by Al Adamson, arguably the worst horror movie ever made,
featured Jim Davis, pre Jock Ewing, as a police detective, Lon Chaney's last appearance, and
another iconic actor, J Carrol Naish.
Highlight of the movie was the beautiful Regina Carrol, and any scene that featured her.

More Trivia

A pre Jock Ewing Jim Davis was a sheriff in another similar movie in that era,
"Jesse James meets Frankenstein's Daughter"

How fortunate for us that Jim Davis kept working until he was cast
as Jock Ewing, and gave us a character that we will always cherish

 

[Crimson]

A pre Jock Ewing Jim Davis was a sheriff in another similar movie in that era,
"Jesse James meets Frankenstein's Daughter"

If Jim had lived a bit longer, we might have gotten JOCK EWING MEETS THE WOLFMAN.

 

[ClassyCo]

This year's theatrical re-releases of the classic Universal films are double features of THE MUMMY (1932) and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) on October 1st, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (1954) and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943) on October 29.

I will definitely be going to the first, but I'm indifferent to CREATURE and PHANTOM.

Is it Fathom Events doing these releases? I can't find the tickets online anywhere.

 

[Crimson]

They're on Fandango.

 

[ClassyCo]

They're on Fandango.

View attachment 40380


View attachment 40381

The wife and I just might make two trips to see all four movies.

 

[Crimson]

I went to see the THE MUMMY (1932) and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) double feature today. It's always great to see classic films on the big screen although this one was a mixed bag.

Of the first round of Universal monster movies, THE MUMMY is my least favorite. Seeing it in theater did not change that opinion. The movie is dull. It has the turgidness of DRACULA (1931), but with none of the eeriness. Karloff, such a dynamic and physical performer, is reduced to standing rigid and looking vaguely ominous. The movie is so tepid, I found myself wondering if it was made after the Hayes Code went into effect; but, nope. The film has its moments but they're fleeting and drowned out by 1930s insipidness. I fell asleep for a good chunk of the movie and was a bit annoyed to wake up to it still playing.



From that, I moved onto the best of the Universal classic horror cycle: THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Although its predecessor was already a better than DRACULA or THE MUMMY, it's remarkable how much cinema had improved in just a few short years. This movie is so much livelier and more fluid than anything that could have been made circa 1931/32. The film shifts from macabre to comical to maudlin effectively; its no easy feat to be this witty without undercutting its inherent seriousness. Like the first movie, the only real negative to BoF is the riotous mishmash of accents (American; British; Continental) passing for German. I think German might have been the only accent not in the movie!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

the only real negative to BoF is the riotous mishmash of accents (American; British; Continental) passing for German. I think German might have been the only accent not in the movie!

I think they were all in Moldavia.

 

[ClassyCo]

I went to see the THE MUMMY (1932) and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) double feature today. It's always great to see classic films on the big screen although this one was a mixed bag.

Of the first round of Universal monster movies, THE MUMMY is my least favorite. Seeing it in theater did not change that opinion. The movie is dull. It has the turgidness of DRACULA (1931), but with none of the eeriness. Karloff, such a dynamic and physical performer, is reduced to standing rigid and looking vaguely ominous. The movie is so tepid, I found myself wondering if it was made after the Hayes Code went into effect; but, nope. The film has its moments but they're fleeting and drowned out by 1930s insipidness. I fell asleep for a good chunk of the movie and was a bit annoyed to wake up to it still playing.

View attachment 40951

From that, I moved onto the best of the Universal classic horror cycle: THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Although its predecessor was already a better than DRACULA or THE MUMMY, it's remarkable how much cinema had improved in just a few short years. This movie is so much livelier and more fluid than anything that could have been made circa 1931/32. The film shifts from macabre to comical to maudlin effectively; its no easy feat to be this witty without undercutting its inherent seriousness. Like the first movie, the only real negative to BoF is the riotous mishmash of accents (American; British; Continental) passing for German. I think German might have been the only accent not in the movie!

View attachment 40952

I so wanted to see this double feature, but we celebrated my brother-in-law's birthday that day. We went to the zoo and it was a very pleasant day; beautiful sunshine, cool breeze, good company. So I don't have any complaints about going. I just wish they were doing another showing of these movies.

We've considered going to see CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, but I'm just that interested in those. We just watched CREATURE a short while back, and I've heard mixed responses about the 1940s version of PHANTOM.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

and I've heard mixed responses about the 1940s version of PHANTOM.

Too much opera; not enough phantom.

 

[Crimson]

Over the course of Halloween week, I watched a few Karloff or Lugosi films.

Every year, for probably the entirety of my life, I watch ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. It was my favorite film as a kid and remains a strong contender for the title in adulthood. I love its deft blend of straightforward Universal horror with A&C shenanigans; one never ruins the other. I'm not a particularly big fan of A&C otherwise, although this year I watched a few others of their films. ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET THE KILLER, with Karloff, is a solid comedy-horror hybrid. The same cannot be said for ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, again with Karloff; this is one of the shoddiest films I've ever seen. By that point, A&C's comedy was exhausted -- late era Three Stooges level of bad. Any Jekyll/Hyde film can usually be counted on for some Victorian London atmosphere, which doesn't take much more than some shadows and a fog machine. This film has the overly bright, flat lighting of TV and no attempt is made to hide that it's a cheap backlot set in overly sunny California.

After ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, my favorite classic horror-comedy is ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944); the perfect combination of comedy and the macabre. Karloff, who had appeared in the Broadway play, was unavailable for the film; the role of Jonathan Brewster, who resents his surgically induced resemblance to Karloff, was played by Raymond Massey.



I also watched the 1962 and 1969 TV-movie versions of ARSENIC AND OLD LACE. The 1962 version notably has Karloff back in the role. (He also played the part on TV in 1955 but that version doesn't seem to exist.) Aside from being entirely too old for the part by then -- he looked older than his elderly aunts! -- the in-joke casting doesn't work as well as I expected. Surgery might explain why the character looked like Karloff, but not why he sounded like Karloff. To his credit, Karloff tried to change his voice a bit but still sounded like Karloff trying not to sound like Karloff. Tony Randall was pretty good in the lead. Cary Grant famously disliked his own performance in the original film, thinking he was too frantic,. Randall found a more modulated approach.



The 1969 version is my least favorite. Bob Crane was a dud in the lead role. Intriguingly, Jonathan is played by Fred Gwynne just a few years after playing the Frankestein-ish Herman Munster. That seemed like brilliant casting, but he was too hammy and not menacing enough in the part. Otherwise, the cast is great -- with Lillian Gish, Helen Hayes, David Wayne, Richard Deacon and Jack Gifford all being very good. I believe this was originally filmed in color but the grainy copy I have is preferably in black & white.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Over the course of Halloween week, I watched a few Karloff or Lugosi films.

Every year, for probably the entirety of my life, I watch ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. It was my favorite film as a kid and remains a strong contender for the title in adulthood. I love its deft blend of straightforward Universal horror with A&C shenanigans; one never ruins the other. I'm not a particularly big fan of A&C otherwise, although this year I watched a few others of their films. ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET THE KILLER, with Karloff, is a solid comedy-horror hybrid. The same cannot be said for ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, again with Karloff; this is one of the shoddiest films I've ever seen. By that point, A&C's comedy was exhausted -- late era Three Stooges level of bad. Any Jekyll/Hyde film can usually be counted on for some Victorian London atmosphere, which doesn't take much more than some shadows and a fog machine. This film has the overly bright, flat lighting of TV and no attempt is made to hide that it's a cheap backlot set in overly sunny California.

After ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, my favorite classic horror-comedy is ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944); the perfect combination of comedy and the macabre. Karloff, who had appeared in the Broadway play, was unavailable for the film; the role of Jonathan Brewster, who resents his surgically induced resemblance to Karloff, was played by Raymond Massey.

View attachment 41610

I also watched the 1962 and 1969 TV-movie versions of ARSENIC AND OLD LACE. The 1962 version notably has Karloff back in the role. (He also played the part on TV in 1955 but that version doesn't seem to exist.) Aside from being entirely too old for the part by then -- he looked older than his elderly aunts! -- the in-joke casting doesn't work as well as I expected. Surgery might explain why the character looked like Karloff, but not why he sounded like Karloff. To his credit, Karloff tried to change his voice a bit but still sounded like Karloff trying not to sound like Karloff. Tony Randall was pretty good in the lead. Cary Grant famously disliked his own performance in the original film, thinking he was too frantic,. Randall found a more modulated approach.

View attachment 41609

The 1969 version is my least favorite. Bob Crane was a dud in the lead role. Intriguingly, Jonathan is played by Fred Gwynne just a few years after playing the Frankestein-ish Herman Munster. That seemed like brilliant casting, but he was too hammy and not menacing enough in the part. Otherwise, the cast is great -- with Lillian Gish, Helen Hayes, David Wayne, Richard Deacon and Jack Gifford all being very good. I believe this was originally filmed in color but the grainy copy I have is preferably in black & white.

View attachment 41608

Great Post.

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein remains a "must-see" for me.

 

[Crimson]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606514893280219136

 

[Crimson]

Tonight I watched a couple Lugosi (and Karloff) films: THE BLACK CAT (1934) and RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1943).

If I had any doubt about why Karloff so easily surpassed Lugosi in the early 30s, my answer is in THE BLACK CAT. Bela was just not good. HIs accent and demeanor were harsh, and his performance was the worst kind of florid, Silent-era over-emoting. The film, despite being visually striking, is turgid and even at a scant 66 minutes feels downright sluggish.



RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE is bonkers. If you squint, it could almost be a sequel to DRACULA and wants very much to be a Universal Horror film. But, made by Columbia, it feels clumsy in a way even the worst Universal films would never have been. The film has a kind of nuttiness one would usually only find in a Poverty Row B-movie yet despite that -- or maybe because of that -- it all kind of works. I liked it.

 

[ClassyCo]

I've yet to scratch and Karloff-Lugosi film off my watchlist. Universal paired them frequently in the '30s, but clearly favored Karloff to Lugosi. The former got the better, more diverse parts, and was typically granted top billing, while the latter was stuck with stereotypes and less screen time.

The relationship between Karloff and Lugosi is an interesting one. I've literally heard it all -- Lugosi despised Karloff for the success he found as Frankenstein's monster, and because Karloff was successful outside of horror films. Apparently, Karloff was civil to Lugosi (his son says he always spoke of "poor Bela" in complimentary terms), but their "feud" was there and their relationship was always hostile.

Who knows? They worked together a good bit, but that doesn't mean they liked each other. I've worked right beside people at banks that appeared to loathe me.