The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

     Ok, so the Invisible Man doesn't exactly return here.   Instead of Claude Rains, we get a 29 year old Vincent Price in the sequel, playing an invisible man that's a bit more gentle and heroic, and a little less chaotic and murdersome.   Don't get me wrong, Price's character of Geoffrey Radcliffe does encounter some of the same egocentric and power mad delusions that would plague Rains' Dr. Griffin in the first installment, but never at such a high level of madness.  This time, instead of an invisible man that we fear, we end up with a noble one that is in need of help if he is to get his name cleared in the killing of his own brother.   A crime that Geoffrey Radcliffe is set to hang for.

    

     When the film opens we learn that Geoffrey Radcliffe, played by Vincent Price, is already in prison awaiting his execution for the murder of his brother.  A murder that his fiance nor his friend believe him to be guilty of.  Well, it just so happens that this friend of his is Dr. Frank Griffin, brother of Dr. Jack/John Griffin, otherwise known to the viewer as the original Invisible Man from the first film.  Frank has his brother's old invisibility formula, and though he hasn't yet found a cure these past nine years, time is running out for Radcliffe, so the decision is made to put the invisibility formula to use in order to help his friend escape.  Of course the police connect the dots fairly quickly here.  Inmate vanished into thin air after getting a visit from a scientist related to a guy that made himself invisible you say?   Of course we still have to prove this theory and a little bit of convincing, but eventually the manhunt for the second invisible man is on.  From there, the police chase after Vincent Price, Mr. Price chases after the real bad guys that framed him, hopefully proving his innocence before he goes power mad crazy.

    

     I like that we are treated to a performance by Alan Napier in this movie.  For those that don't remember, Alan Napier played Alfred, the butler in the 1960's Batman TV series.  I had no idea he was in this until I saw the opening credits.  Seems every so often we are treated with an actor at a time we aren't suspecting him.  It made me think of the Dwight Frye cameo in the first Invisible Man, though Napier has a bigger role in this movie.

    

     And as Alan Napier caused me to recall Dwight Frye, so too did the annoying dog that wouldn't quit barking cause me to remember how annoying I found Gloria Stuart and/or Una O'Connor to be in the first film.  Don't get me wrong though,  I'd much rather listen to Una O'Connor's over the top screams than the whiney howls of this dog.

    

     The special effects weren't as impressive this time around but they do work for the most part.  Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  How does one not enjoy any sort of Vincent Price performance?  Even if Mr. Price only really shows himself at the end of the movie.

                                                                  GRADE: B-

The Invisible Man (1933)

     Before Heath Ledger's Joker, there was Claude Rains' Invisible Man.  That is the thought that runs through my mind every time the subject of this movie comes up.  Rains is about as maniacal and off the rails as one is going to find back in 1933, and he is perfect at it.  And to think that we almost got Karloff or Clive in this role.  I find the prospect of Colin Clive as The Invisible Man particularly interesting, but it was not to be.  The role went to Claude Rains and he ran with it.  Director James Whale took quite a chance hiring the unknown Rains, but it paid off in a big way.

 

     Now, I do also find this movie to have a bit of silliness to it but I believe those moments to be largely on purpose.  When the policeman and his two buddies chase the shirt around the chair, was it really necessary?  Una O'Connor's over exaggerated screams?   I suppose some people find those moments to simply add to the finished film but I found them to be a bit too Mel Brooks in a pre-Mel Brooks world.  I'm sure that in this movie, it was easy to take things over the top.  The scene where Rains skips down the road, singing in nothing but a pair of pants could have easily pushed itself too far as well, but it didn't.  I think it was very important for Whale to find the correct balance for this movie, and for the most part he did.

     The special effects of The Invisible Man hold up really well.  Especially if you are fortunate enough to view the Blu-Ray version of it.  When I first saw this movie, I expected a lot more visible wire work and cheap parlor tricks.  Boy was I wrong.  The effects are outstanding and not nearly as dated as one might think.

     Still, the real attraction of this movie is in Claude Rains' performance as Dr. Griffin, a scientist that has managed to turn himself invisible but can't seem to find the privacy or time he requires to turn himself back.   And this invisibility comes with a price.  His mind.  The longer Dr. Griffin remains in this invisible state, the more egocentric and power mad he becomes.   Before too long, Dr. Griffin's motives become less about curing himself and more about causing chaos.  De-rail a train?  Sure.  Kill a policeman by bashing him in the head to prove you exist?  Why not?  And that's just what Dr. Griffin does to people that he doesn't hold a grudge against.  Just ask his lab partner Dr. Kemp.  Oh wait, we can't.  Poor Kemp.  Then again, he was a filthy sneaky rat coward wasn't he?

     Part of me wishes that Gloria Stuart's character of Flora was in that car that went over the cliff.  I just found her to be a bit whiney and over dramatic, even for a 1933 film.  Still, there was way more to love about this movie than to nitpick about, and it's become one of my favorite Universal Monster films.

                                                              GRADE: A-

 

Frankenstein (1994)

     In the next few weeks, I hope to view both of the James Whale Frankenstein movies and discuss my thoughts on them.  For now though, I'm going to start w/ the Robert DeNiro version that was released in 1994, for no other reason that I've recently watched that movie and it's still fresh in my mind.
 
     It's hard to believe that it's been 20 years since this movie came out.  I was in high school at the time, and though I was very much a fan of the Gary Oldman Dracula flick, the previews for this newly updated Frankenstein didn't impress me much.  In other words, I didn't see it.  Over the years that followed I caught chunks of the movie on various channels at various times but never took the time to sit and watch it straight through.  I suppose I was almost always up for a new take on vampires or werewolves but when it came to Frankenstein's monster,  I always preferred to just stick with the older Universal flicks.

     Recently, that changed when I picked up a used copy of Frankenstein (1994) on DVD.  Twenty years later and it was time to give this movie a go.  The first thing that I need to point out is that I did enjoy this movie.  I would have liked to seen some different casting choices but I wasn't turned off by any of the actors in this.  These actor/actress's worked just fine.  I found John Cleese to be particularly interesting as I couldn't think of another time when Cleese played a non comedic role.  He works well here and I was a bit saddened to see Cleese exit the movie so soon after we meet him.  While the first 30 minutes or so of the movie is necessary to establish some things, it's really after this point that the movie starts to get good.  I was immediately jealous of Victor Frankenstein's new attic bachelor pad.  That's the kind of apartment that I wouldn't mind living in.  I suppose that it was really a downgrade compared to the castle/mansion that Victor grew up in.  That place had a pretty killer attic too.  But the solidarity of his school apartment seemed to make it appealing to me.  From there on, Dr. Frankenstein's creation takes shape and things get dreary all over.  The last one third of this film might be the most depressing in the history of film.  The end holds nothing for us but fire and death.  What do you take away from a film like this?  Do not tamper with the laws of nature?  Wasn't that the message of the 1932 classic and well, the Frankenstein mythos in general?  I guess so, but unlike its Karloff counterpart, this is not a monster movie.  It's a movie that's more about the desolation of the Frankenstein household and in particular the downfall of Baron Victor Frankenstein than anything else.  I'd be interested to know what Robert DeNiro thinks of this movie 20 years later.  Again, I did enjoy the movie.  But it's not a movie that takes you on an incredible journey.  It's one that shows a man's world torn apart by his own doing, with no happy ending in sight.  If you feel that you are up to it, then by all means, put this movie in and let Dr. Victor Frankenstein tell you his story.  But be cautious, you may not like where his story takes you.

                                                            GRADE: C
    

Classic Horror

     What do we consider to be "Classic Horror" these days?   I suppose that depends largely on who you ask.  For me, it's usually the names Lugosi, Karloff or Chaney.  I'm also willing to accept the names Lee, Cushing or Price as well.  Horror movies have enjoyed so many different sub genres and remakes throughout the decades, that it becomes hard to classify these movies sometimes.

     I'm not going to limit my discussions on horror to only the "classics" though.  I may even trail off into science fiction or fantasy movies at times.  Rest assured though, horror movies will remain a constant with Frankenstein's Shadow.  To understand my tastes in horror movies,  let us go back to the beginning.

     When I was around the age of 4 or 5 years old,  I saw what I believe to be,  my first horror movies:  Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. and Young Frankenstein.  I know,  some would be quick to point out that these are comedy movies and shouldn't count.   But guess what?  I'm counting them.  I understood that Young Frankenstein was a parody movie.  I was aware of the zaniness of it and knew not to take the movie so seriously,  but that classic horror feeling was ever present in the look and presentation of that flim.   And although Abbott & Costello contained humor, it also contained the original classic monsters.  Just because the two leads of the picture were bumbling about, didn't make Lugosi's Dracula any less intimidating.  I really believed that Chaney's Wolf Man could easily tear into either of them.   It was also around this time that I was given a set of classic monster action figures.  I don't remember if I had The Mummy or not, but I did have Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolf Man, The Phantom, The Creature and a cool little carrying case that doubled as a haunted house play set.  You combine these 3 1/2 inch action figures with Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein and my love of those classic horror monsters was set in stone.  I had a bigger Dracula that glowed in the dark as well.  He sat on the top of my headboard at night and warded off the closet monster.  No one was going to mess with me when I have Dracula on my side, right?  I also have to point out that I'm the only kid that I'm aware of that would throw all of my toys on the bed so that I could pretend my wooden toy box was a coffin.  I'd wait for someone (usually my mom) to enter my bedroom and then in my best Lugosi imitation, rise from my "coffin".

     As the years went on, the slasher era became more and more relevant.  I spent my fair share of time watching Friday The 13th and Nightmare On Elm Street movies.  Who didn't love Freddy Kruger in the 80's?  But as I got older,  I rediscovered those classic monsters again.  I spent a lot of time not only watching Lugosi and Karloff in the classic Universal movies but also seeking out other movies they did during that early era of horror.  I consider those old horror movies to be like watching theater in way.  They weren't about blood and gore for shock value.  They were about spooky castles and foggy graveyards.  Great dialogue and villains that weren't just horrible, but intelligent as well.  So often in horror movies, the actions and deaths become senseless.  But when you watch Lugosi or Price's films, you understand their actions were not that of a senseless killer.  They were very sensible, very smart and perhaps that made them even more dangerous.

     One thing that I've learned after all these years of watching so many different horror flicks is that 5 year old me and 35 year old me have a lot in common.  And I find some comfort in that.

Welcome to my laboratory.

     Frankenstein's Shadow has officially risen from the silent catacombs here beneath these charred castle walls.  Sure, all the laboratory equipment needs dusted off and there are cobwebs in nearly every corner, but rest assured that will change.

     So just what is this place?  Well, I'm not sure that I'm fully aware either.  I wanted a place to share my passion for classic horror movies and this seems like as good a start as any.  I'm sure to be putting up a great number of movie reviews.  But I'd like for this to be so much more.  Whether it be discussions on different horror genres or just sharing Halloween plans,  I'm hoping that Frankenstein's Shadow will cast itself over a much larger array of things in time.  In the meantime, I hope all that find this sanctuary enjoy themselves.

Oh, and I wouldn't drink the coffee if I were you.  Just in case.