GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (strangenstein) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:54:58 PST

Another great review Gene, and a BIG thank you for "playing fair", i.e. giving the film its proper due rather than dismissing it outright. I've said many times (after donning flame retardant gear) that GHOST would be better remembered than SON if Chaney h...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (gene phillips) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:48:49 PST

Yes, the Monster's easy turning on Ygor bothered me as well, particularly since the early scenes show him as being very dependent on him. Ludwig's life is spared in the courtroom scene purely by the chance that Ygor summons the Monster with the flute (a ...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (atenolol) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:32:08 PST

I watched this one last night. Strictly by the numbers affair with recycled ideas. I didn't think any of the cast brought their A games. Hardwicke seems bored and is boring. Atwill has a couple of moments but falls into his go-through-the-motion...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (Rick) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:33:47 PST

gene phillips wrote:The Monster's eyes look more hooded to me, but I confess I'm not an expert on the topic. Taking away an actor's eyes may be the worst handicap you can wreak upon even a minor thespian.When did the makeup artists go...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (gene phillips) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:30:58 PST

luisj40 wrote: I love all the Universal Frankenstein films but of the standalone films (not counting the monster team-ups that would follow) this was the last and definitely the weakest which I think is natural as this seems to be the case with most fi...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (gene phillips) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:28:07 PST

Wich2 wrote: >but his makeup apparently restricted his ability to use his facial expressions freelyRead More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (luisj40) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:40:49 PST

I love all the Universal Frankenstein films but of the standalone films (not counting the monster team-ups that would follow) this was the last and definitely the weakest which I think is natural as this seems to be the case with most film series.

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (telegonus) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:06:00 PST

Nice review, Gene. Ghost Of Frankenstein is better than its reputation might indicate and would proabably have a better reputation still if it hadn't been a Frankenstein picture at all. Okay, I know this souds funny but they had good actors, nice sets, a...
Read More

Re: GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (Wich2) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:45:58 PST

>but his makeup apparently restricted his ability to use his facial expressions freely< Jr. wore essentially the same Pierce product that Karloff had, and Boris's work showed no such evident limitations. I think we have to credit the difference to I...
Read More

GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942)

feeds@yuku.com (gene phillips) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:44:32 PST

In my review of 1939's SON OF FRANKENSTEIN I said it was: "...the first film in the series to begin the tendency to donwplay the Frankenstein Monster himself as a vital character in the stories. The central characters, much like their writers, ...
Read More