Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Depending on who you talk to, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is either one of the best horror comedy films ever made, or the absolute the nadir in Universal's monster series of the 40s. To many horror aficionados it is a depressing sight to see three great horror icons (Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Frankenstein Monster) playing second fiddle to the comedy stylings of Abbott and Costello. In their mind, it's on par with shouting "HAIL SATAN!" in the middle of a Sunday church service, ABSOLUTE BLASPHEMY! I am part of the former camp that claim it at as one of the best, if not the best, horror comedy ever made.
 Of course, I'm absolutely biased as I first saw it when I was nine and watched it obsessively throughout the course of my youth. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein was also my first exposure to both Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster (I saw The Wolf Man before hand). I own it in two different formats (VHS and DVD). I remember seeing the VHS on the shelf at Suncoast video, beckoning me to buy it for the low price of $19.99 and I obeyed, spending two weeks worth of allowance money on it in the process. A few months ago I spotted it on the DVD rack at Wal-Mart for $7.50 and needless to say bought it (especially after learning that it had a Greg Mank commentary on it).

The films of Abbott and Costello are fairly hit or miss, their best films include: Pardon My Sarong, Hold That Ghost, Who Done It, The Time of Their Lives, Buck Privates, Buck Privates Come Home, Africa Screams, and, of course, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Their other films range from being tolerable, but mediocre to downright painful; the 50s, in particular, was not a kind decade for the comedy duo. Though, I have a soft spot from the absolute dreadful Abbott and Costello Go Mars, mainly because it borders on the surreal at times (the boys bump into a civilization of attractive warrior women that inhabit Venus). Costello's childish antics can be funny, especially when paired with the supernatural, but can be irritating as well. Bud Abbott was the perfect straight man and brought balance to the proceedings, often to the point of being able to offset Costello's mugging.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein would be the swan song for Universal's classic monsters, they would be replaced in the following decade by giant insects, alien invaders, dinosaurs, and most famously, the Gill Man from The Creature From the Black Lagoon. The plot is fairly simple: Dracula (Bela Lugosi) wants to put the brain of the dimwitted Wilbur (Costello) in the body of the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) so it will be obedient to his commands. Enter Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) whose top priority is stop Dracula, when he isn't turning into a werewolf and tearing up hotel rooms. While many horror fans complain about the monsters being relegated to supporting roles to a "second rate" comedy team, the truth is that Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is far more respectful to the classic horror icons than the two previous films in the Universal series, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. The Wolf Man comes off rather well in these two pictures, but that's largely because he's central to the plot of both films. Dracula, wonderfully played by John Carradine, gets killed off midway through both films and the Frankenstein Monster is essentially a walking prop. In House of Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster spends most of the film strapped to an operating table, then in the finally closing minutes (the last two to be exact) he stumbles around inside a burning castle, only to have the roof come crashing down on him. To add insult to injury, the shot of the roof caving in on the Monster is lifted from The Ghost of Frankenstein. 
The reason Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a success is that it takes the horror elements seriously; never once are the monsters made to look silly. There's no scene in which Dracula's trousers fall down, or the Wolf Man taking a pie in the face. Dracula poses a very serious threat to our protagonists and Lugosi gives a very commanding performance (in the role he made famous seventeen years earlier). The humor comes from the characters reactions to the supernatural elements, or them being completely oblivious to them. In one funny/scary scene, Larry Talbot begs the boys to lock him in his hotel room and they reluctantly comply. However, Wilbur notices that Talbot left his suitcase in the hallway and brings it in, unaware that Talbot has just changed into the Wolf Man. The scene is filled with near misses and in one particularly moment Wilbur sits down to write Talbot a note, letting him know where the suitcase is, ignorant to the fact that the Wolf Man is lurking right behind him. Modern days audiences will probably find the scene more amusing than scary, but I'm sure it was an absolute scream fest in 1948.

The film is loaded with horror film iconography:
1) A creepy wax museum. The owner of the wax museum, Mr. McDougal, has purchased what he thinks are the "remains" of Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster, unaware both are fully intact and very much alive. This is where Wilbur first encounters Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster.
2) The shot of the full moon. In the opening sequence, Larry Talbot is on the phone in his London hotel room, trying to convince Wilbur, a baggage clerk at a railway station, not to deliver the crates that contain Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster to McDougal's House of Horrors. However, before he can finish his sentence, he notices the full moon and transforms into a werewolf and proceeds to tear apart his room.
3) A dilapidated, old castle. Dracula lives inside the castle under the pseudonym Dr. Leighos. It's also where he keeps his laboratory is located.
4) Secret passages. Chick and Wilbur, while searching the castle, stumble upon a underground passageway. Wilbur leans against a brick wall, which turns out to be a revolving panel that leads to a secret room where the Frankenstein Monster is being kept. Wilbur experiences a few close calls with both Dracula and the Monster. When Wilbur goes to get Chick, they have both seemingly vanished into thin air.
5) Hypnotism. Dracula is able to hypnotize Sandra (Lenore Aubert) and Wilbur into obeying his will.
6) The bat on the string effect. We get plenty of shots of Dracula, in bat form, flapping about the countryside.   It's also one of the few horror films of the decade in which the audience gets to see Dracula transform into a bat and vice versa. This is achieved through animation and, while not entirely convincing, is a rather neat effect to watch.
7) The laboratory scene. At the end of the film, Dracula has both Wilbur and the Frankenstein monster strapped to operating tables inside his laboratory. However, before he can begin his operation Chick and Larry come bursting into the save the day. Just when it seems Wilbur is finally safe from all harm, Larry turns into the Wolf Man.

The only real flaw of the film is the character of Dr. Stevens (Charles Bradstreet), whose main function is to serve as a love interest to Joan Raymond (Jane Randolph), an insurance investigator working for McDougal.
He is a rather uninvolving character and nearly drains the fun out of every scene he is in, which, thankfully, isn't too many. He does destroy the Frankenstein Monster at the film's end (by setting it on fire), but even that is a bit anti-climatic, considering Chick and Wilbur are rowing to safety in a row boat, while the Wolf Man and the Dracula have plummeted to their supposed deaths.

However, this is an extremely minor flaw in an otherwise great film. Abbott and Costello would bump into other monsters (The Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Mummy) in the next decade, but none of those films come close to capturing the magic of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. It was lightning in a bottle that would also signal the end for the classic Universal Monsters.

Credits:
Cast: Bud Abbott (Chick Young), Lou Costello (Wilbur Grey), Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Lon Chaney,Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Glenn Strange (Frankenstein Monster), Lenore Aubert (Sandra Morney), Jane Randolph (Joan Raymond), Frank Ferguson (Mr. McDougal), Charles Bradstreet (Dr. Stevens).

Director: Charles Barton
Screenplay: Robert Lees, Frederic I. Rinaldo, John Grant.
Running Time: 83 min.

The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey, Or, The Bad Assification of J.R.R. Tolkien

In the past few months we have bombarded with cinematic re-imaginings of children's stories: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, Jack the Giant Slayer, Oz: The Great and Powerful, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The thing these films have in common (other than being adaptations of children's stories) is that they focus more on action and spectacle (to the 3D format) than telling an actual story. Hence, the bad ass factor is ratcheted up several notches, while characters and narrative get lost in the mix. It is only a matter of time before we are treated to a re-imagining of The Tortoise and the Hare (in 3D), which will end in a huge slug fest between the two characters and the tortoise coming out triumphant after he beheads the evil hare. 

Everything in today’s commercial cinema must be cool and bad ass otherwise, in the mind of Hollywood execs, the audience might have no interest in seeing it. So, not only do modern fight scenes defy the laws of physics, but they are now tailored to fit the needs of 3D as well. Therefore, when some bad ass warrior gets into a long elaborate duel with a baddie, there’s got to be a few shots in which he lunges directly at the camera.
Unfortunately, once the gimmick begins to wear thin, the easier it becomes to spot the flaws in the storytelling. Directors are sold on the idea that the audience will be in complete awe of the 3D effects that they will overlook the film’s many shortcomings. Consequently, the best 3D films tend to be the ones that are rather conservative with the 3D gimmick, while focusing more on the actual story line  They don’t “WOW” audiences in the movie theaters,  but they hold up a lot better after multiple viewings than their more flamboyant counterparts. 

Which brings me to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, or as I like to call Lord of the Rings, Episode I: The Unexpected Journey. When it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic CHILDREN’s story into a three part movie, it left a good many people (Internet message boards) dumbfounded.  “How in the hell is Peter Jackson going to adapt a 300 page novel into a nine hour epic?” they asked.  After viewing the film, the answer become obvious: by adding as many subplots as humanly possible and shoehorning as many Lord of the Rings references in as possible…ALL IN GLORIOUS 3D. 

 Normally, I don’t have anything objections to when a filmmaker makes changes to the novel; after all, these changes are often necessary, ideas and characters that read well on the printed page don’t necessarily translate well onto the big screen.  When Jackson adapted The Fellowship of the Ring, I, for one, did not miss the character of Tom Bombadil. He would have been absolutely insufferable to watch (“Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!").  He was also fairly extraneous to the plot. He’s main function is to add a little color to the narrative.

However, Peter Jackson’s adaptation of The Hobbit maybe the rare example where it will take more time to watch the movies (all three of them) than read the actual novel. Whereas most adaptations omit characters/subplots from the novels to make them more streamlined for the cinema, Jackson actually adds characters/subplots to his cinematic rendering of the The Hobbit.  Fans may argue that it adds to depth to the overall proceedings and nicely ties it in with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it also has the unfortunate effect of making Bilbo (Martin Freeman) a supporting character in his own story. 

Peter Jackson’s often seems more invested in the character of Thorin Oakenshield than he is in Bilbo Baggins, the titular character.  Thorin is given not one, BUT TWO BACK STORIES. The first tells about how the dwarves were driven from Lonely Mountain by the dragon Smaug, the other is a lengthy flashback that details Thorin’s epic battle with the White Orc, Azog, (a character that is only mentioned in passing in the book).  Thorin mistakenly believes that he killed the White Orc a long time ago, but the bugger is still alive and seeks vengeance.  This, of course, leads to a show down at the film’s climax where Thorin and the White Orc duke it out. Thorin is thoroughly beaten, but Bilbo saves the day. Yup! Jackson finally remembers that Bilbo is the actual protagonist of the story and has him dabble in an act of heroism that wasn't in the book. In the novel, the dwarves are being chased by the Orcs and take refuge in the trees. The Orcs set the trees on fire and it looks like the Dwarves are cooked, when all of a sudden eagles swoop down and fly them to safety.
However, this resolution is not nearly bad ass enough for today’s audience, not to mention it wouldn't make for exciting 3D. So Jackson adds a small battle to the proceedings, after a horribly drawn out scene in which the trees tumble over like dominoes, forcing the Dwarves to hop from tree to tree until finally there is only one left and it’s hanging over the edge of a cliff. The tree slowly begins to uproot and leans at such an angle that Thorin is able to walk straight off it and face his tormentor face to face. The two duke it out, then Bilbo comes to save the day. The other Dwarves join in (the ones not hanging for their dear lives on the branches of the hanging tree) and it becomes a big free for all. When everything seems lost, the eagles come and save the day. BAD ASS! Go easy on the high fives, dude, you might spill the Mountain Dew.

The problem with this sequence, other then being horribly long, is that it resolves Bilbo's character arc much too early in the story; there's no reason to doubt his heroism after this scene, because he bravely risked his life to save Thorin's. In the book, the turning point for Bilbo is when the dwarves are captured by the giant spiders, he is on his own (Gandalf has left) and is essentially forced into an act of heroism. Up until this point in the book, Bilbo is a fairly timid character who is often more of a hindrance than actual help. After he slews the spiders and saves the Dwarves, Bilbo grows increasingly more confident in himself to the point that doesn't hesitate in facing Smaug. Of course, because Jackson decided to stretch the story out over the course of three movies, there needs to be some resolution at the end of the first film, hence, Bilbo's heroism and Thorin's new found respect for him.
It's also for this reason that the White Orc is such a prominent character throughout the film; without him there would be no clear antagonist. Smaug isn't set to make his appearance until the next film, the Necromancer is still in the shadows, and all the other baddies they encounter (Trolls, Goblin King) are stumbling blocks at best. Had Jackson just adapted The Hobbit into one film, there would absolutely  be no need for the White Orc, as Smaug would be more than enough to suffice. It's ironic that the 1977 Rankin/Bass version, despite being only 80 minutes in length, is far more faithful in tone to the novel than Peter Jackson's EPIC film. Of course, the Rankin/Bass was more in tune with their intended audience (children) than Jackson, who seemingly doesn't know who this movie is for; it seems like he's aiming for a children's movie that is frat boy approved. It ranges from being fairly whimsical at times (Bilbo's first encounter with Gandalf, the scenes with the wizard Radagast) to down right violent at others (practically all the fight scenes). It doesn't help that many of the scenes (especially the escape from Goblin Town) have the feel of Playstation video game. Like video games, their fun for the person that's playing it, but get fairly boring to the person who has to watch.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey often seems less like an adaptation of Tolkien's novel and more of a rehash Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring. In fact, The Hobbit follows The Fellowship of the Ring almost beat for beat.

1. In The Fellowship of the Ring we are shown a prelude that involves the War of the Ring. In The Hobbit we are shown a prelude of Smaug attacking Lonely Mountain and driving the Dwarves away from their homeland.

2. After the prelude, we go back to aged Bilbo (Ian Holm) writing his memories down in a journal. Frodo makes a brief appearance by getting the mail, while looking completely confused.

3. Thorin is essentially the stand in for Aragorn; a king without a kingdom. Of course, the difference is that Aragorn dodged his responsibility because of his inner doubts, Thorin has been waiting for the right moment to return. However, both are exceptional warriors and have an air of mystery about them that slowly gets revealed as the film progresses.

4. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo and company are being stalked by the Black Riders. In The Hobbit, Bilbo and friends are being stalked by the Orcs, led by the extremely evil Azog.

5. The Fellowship of the Ring has the Council of Elrond, while The Hobbit has the White Council (NOT IN THE BOOK).  Both occur in Rivendell. Like Gimli, Thorin has an extreme dislike for Elves.

6. Goblin Town scene in The Hobbit occurs at about the same time as the Mines of Moria sequence from Fellowship of the Ring. The escape from Goblin Town isn't very detailed in the book, because as Gandalf and Dwarves are running away, Bilbo is knocked off the back of the Dwarf that is carrying him and falls down a chasm. It's then he meets Gollum. In the film, Bilbo falls down the chasm while the Dwarves are being captured by the Goblins. The Riddles in the Dark scene happens during the encounter with the Goblin King as opposed to after. This allows for Jackson to show the Dwarves escape in full detail and to take advantage of the 3D effects, hence, lots of shots of collapsing bridges and characters running towards the camera.

You shall not pass!

The pity is that somewhere in the rubble is a potentially great movie. Peter Jackson has assembled one hell of a cast; Martin Freeman is ideally cast as Bilbo and it's always a joy to see Ian McKellan as Gandalf. The Riddles in the Dark scene with Gollum is as good as I could have hoped for and the Goblin King is well realized. Had Jackson been more interested in adapting the story the Tolkien wrote as opposed ladling out subplots and ties in, he could have had a genuine classic on his hands. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not bad movie, but it's a disappointment nonetheless.

Credits:

Cast: Ian McKellan (Gandalf), Richard Armitage (Thorin), Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Sylvester McCoy (Radagast),  Hugo Weaving (Elrond),Christopher Lee (Sauron), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Ken Stott (Balin), Graham McTavish (Dwalin), William Kircher (Bifus/Tom Troll), James Nesbitt (Bofur), Stephen Hunter (Bombur), Dean O' Gorman (Fili), Aidan Turner (Kili), John Callen (Oin), Peter Hambleton (Gloin/William Troll), Jed Brophy (Nori), Mark Hadlow (Dori/Bert Troll), Adam Brown (Ori), Barry Humphreys (The Great Goblin), Ian Holm (Old Bilbo), Elijah Wood (Frodo).

Director: Peter Jackson
Screenplay: Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, Guillermo del Toro.

Running Time: 166 min.