Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)Director: Charles Barton
Writer: Mary Shelley (Characters), Bram Stoker (Characters), Robert Lees (Screenplay), Frederic I. Rinaldo (Screenplay), John Grant (Screenplay)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi, Glenn Strange, Lenore Aubert, Jane Randolph, Frank Ferguson, Charles Bradstreet
Before watching Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) I wondered how I should go about reviewing it. Since it is part of my Frankentstein Blog-a-thon should I review it based on how Frankenstein's monster is presented through the film? Should I just review it as a straight comedy since it is an Abbott and Costello film? Well... it turns out that this would not be such a problem because the film didn't work for me on either level.
This was my first foray into the comedy of Abbott and Costello so I wasn't sure what to expect but I think that perhaps their comedy is just not my cup of tea. I found myself chuckling a little bit during the film but these chuckles were very few and far between. I don't want to say that the comedy was bad, I guess I can see how this could be appealing to someone else but it didn't work for me. I guess it is possible that this is just not one of their best films and I might enjoy another. According to IMDB Lou Costello didn't even want to do the film because of the bad script and was only convinced to do it when he was offered a $50,000 advance in salary.
The film also doesn't do a particularly good job in its presentation of Frankenstein's monster. He is pretty much just treated as a prop instead of a character. The film turns him into the mindless servant of Count Dracula, who isn't really portrayed that well in the film either. Bela Lugosi was great in the original Dracula (1931) and it is kind of sad that he became relugated to playing this kind of spoof of the character of Dracula. Of course the inclusion of Wolfman isn't handled particularly well either. The film pretty much made a mockery of the three classic monsters that it portrayed. I know the film was supposed to be a comedy and not horror but a better job could have been done with the characterization of the monsters.Frankenstein's monster wasn't even in the movie for that long. Both Dracula and Wolfman have more screen time than the monster that gets to share the title with Abbott and Costello. The film could have just as easily have been called Abbott and Costello meet Dracula. In fact that probably would have been a much more fitting title for the story that was told. The story revolves more around Dracula than it does Frankenstein's monster.
In the end I just didn't really care for the movie for its comedy or for its portrayal of one of my favorite movie monsters. The DVD I got from Netflix was actually scratched and I wasn't able to see the last ten minutes of the movie but I really didn't care. I was so uninterested in the story that I didn't really care whether or not I finished the film. I am pretty sure that there wasn't anything in that last ten minutes that would have made me change my mind about the film.
Rating: 3/10
6 comments:
apparently you don't know classics.............this is why people take listen to reviewers
apparently you don't know classics.......this is why people don't listen to reviewers.
I am glad you were able to get enjoyment from the film. All that says is that your sense of humor differs from mine. There is nothing wrong with that though. If everyone had the same sense of humor the world would be boring place.
Actually I quite enjoy many classic films and also have seen many classic comedies that I found to be quite funny. I just did not find this one funny. Jumping to conclusions and insulting my taste is a bit of an over the top reaction though.
I also didn't care for how they treated the character of Frankenstein's monster. He was a title character and was treated as and after thought.
Thanks for stopping by the blog and I always appreciate comments.
Now, I happen to like this movie, but it's because I grew up watching A&C movies, and - honestly - it's more of an A&C movie than a FRANKENSTEIN movie. I was also exposed to this movie as a child, and it now seems more kid friendly than it did when it was first released. As a fan of the Old School "Universal Monsters," it's quite charming, especially in that it showcases not only Frankenstein's monster (albeit a more sedate version of it than in previous incarnations; he's stupid, really), but also the camp version of Dracula as paif by Bela Lugosi himself, AND the "real" Wolfman himself, Lon Chaney, Jr. (And let's not forget the cameo by the Invisible Man at the end, as played by the voice of Vincent Price). But let's be honest, here: it's a relic from another time period - a more innocent, less critical time period - and it's easy to see why a more modern viewer wouldn't like it. There's nothing wrong with that. Different Strokes for Different Folks. At least your review is HONEST, which I appreciate. It's okay if you didn't like it.
I missed the cameo by The Invisible Man. My dvd was scratched so I missed the last 10 minutes or so of the movie. I will agree that this is a relic from another time period but there are several comedies from this time period that I enjoy. Maybe I'm just a Marx Brothers kind of guy and not a Abbott and Costello kind of guy.
Some comedies are timeless, and some are a product of their time. ANIMAL HOUSE would have resulted in the film-makers being drawn and quartered had it been released in the 1940's. Audiences from that time period wouldn't have approved of it, and probably wouldn't have liked it. Even in its day, though, this A&C flick was regarded simply as fluff. A time-waster at best, but certainly not a "monsterpiece."
Post a Comment