O Filho de Frankenstein

'Frankenstein' and 'Bride of...' pretty much told a complete story. And the story was fashioned in such a way that the viewer is watching the events as they unfold. As the events unfold, the story shifts from the torment of the creator, Frankenstein, to the torment of the creation, the Monster.

Now in 'Son of...', the emphasis is shifted back to the scientist. And Karloff no longer has a monopoly on the role of the 'Back From the Dead'; he shares that with Lugosi's 'Ygor'. Nor does he have the monopoly on the 'Artificial Human'; he shares that spot with Atwill's one-armed 'Inspector Krogh'. Nor does he possess his personality that was gradually evolving in the first two entries. The Monster has been reduced to a hulking henchman bound to the will of the evil Ygor.

The 'Monster turned pawn' had actually begun in 'Bride of...' as Pretorious used him to force Frankenstein to create the Monster's mate. You could almost say that the Monster was used as a tool for Henry Frankenstein to play God; a tool for Pretorious' dream to create a new race; and a tool for Ygor's desire for revenge on the jurors who condemned him to the hangman's noose. The difference in 'Son of...' is that the Monster no longer evolves and the character is left with no where to go.

But this is still a fascinating film. Director Lee replaces realistic sets and background with surrealism. Details from the first two films are abandoned for light background and twisted, gargantuan shadows. And much of some great action set-pieces have already occurred off screen, before the movie begins. Which means we're left with alot of talk of 'what was' and 'what happened before'. Which kind of fits into the definition of what a legend constitutes. Fortunately, the actors doing the talking are Rathbone, Lugosi and Atwill. Even Rathbone's over the top performance can be forgiven, knowing his next film(?) was his signature (& debut) role as Sherlock Holmes in 'Hound of the Baskervilles', a role he was absolutely brilliant in.

Even though Karloff has a much reduced role, the gigantic sets, dead trees and slanted architecture compels the viewer to be constantly aware of his lurking menace. It is this approach that, standing on its own, makes this a fine film. The viewer is forced to rely on imagination more than the first two movies put together. It is certainly a more polished film than the original. And Lugosi and Atwill's support acting are leagues above the wooden Mae Clarke, John Boles and Valerie Hobson.

Like the Monster; "tis better to have been made, than never to have been made at all". We would have missed out on all that fun.

7 out of 10 ! One of my favorite 'Frankenstein' films.

Basil Rathbone plays Wolf, the son of Frankenstein, returning to his inheritance of castle and lab with wife and child in tow. Along the way he meets his father's old assistant Ygor, who has a broken neck from having been hanged and living, and the creature his father created. The townspeople get excited, a couple die, and mayhem takes over. This movie is above-average for a number of reasons. First and foremost it is a highly stylized movie in the German impressionistic manner. The sets are incredible and director Rowland Lee spares little in showing us his appreciation of movies such as Nosferatu and Caligari. The castle is a huge atmospheric temple and each room is just as big in its own way. This is the film that inspired most of Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein both in look and plot. The plot is good but the acting carries it beyond that. Karloff as always does a great job in his final role as the monster. Rathbone makes a great scientist trying to avenge his father's name. He starts the movie very relaxed and his tension builds and builds. His scenes with Atwill are his best. That brings us to the two great performances of the film...Lionel Atwill and Bela Lugosi. Lugosi as Ygor is perhaps his greatest role after Dracula. His voice, his leers, his manner are all wonderfully played. It is Lugosi that steals every scene he is in. That is not bad because Lionel Atwill steals every scene he is in(the two have no scenes together). Atwill brings life into his role as an inspector with a wooden arm. Atwill has grace and charm, and a generous dose of humour. This is his best role as far as I am concerned. Just listening to him give his speech about his encounter with the monster as a child is at one hand chilling and at the other emotional. Son of Frankenstein deservedly ranks as one of the great Universal horror pictures. It is not as good as The Bride of Frankenstein, but looks better than any of the Universal horror pictures. And that is as great a compliment as any!

Definitely the most underrated of the three "Karloff-as-Monster" films. To my mind, it's the one that plays best today. Bela Legosi gives his finest, most understated performance as Ygor. The cinematography is spectacular. Lionel Atwill's performance is my favorite of his (and one of the few times he didn't play a villain). I could go on and on ad infinitum, but I don't see the reason to. The film speaks for itself. It gets one of my highest recommendations.

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) inherits his family's ancestral castle, the same location where Wolf's father did his experimentation with reviving the dead many years ago. After Wolf and his wife and young son take up residence, they discover that the old castle has another resident, strange cripple Ygor (Bela Lugosi). Ygor had been sentenced to death for grave robbing many years ago, but his hanging was botched and it left him with a crooked neck. Ygor has a secret as well: he found the Monster (Boris Karloff) in a series of caves beneath the castle, and he's nursed him back to health. However, Ygor needs Wolf's medical expertise fully revive the Monster. Also featuring Lionel Atwill, Josephine Hutchinson, Donnie Dunagan, Emma Dunn, Edgar Norton, Lionel Belmore, and Gustav von Seyffertitz.

I've always considered this the beginning of Universal's Phase Two in their monster films, where they started to get progressively sillier, adding lots of additional weird characters, ultimately leading up to the monster mash-ups of the mid-40's. Director Lee brings a lot of style to the proceedings, and the throwback German Expressionism set design is a treat. The performances are good, although Boris is given a lot less to do, and one can see why he tired of the part. Lugosi has one of his more iconic roles as the vengeance-seeking Ygor. Lionel Atwill, as the local police inspector with a prosthetic arm, is also memorable. Rathbone seems to have fun, with a winking performance that is tongue in cheek. Josephine Hutchinson fails to make much of an impression, and whether you find young Donnie Dunagan cute or annoying will depend on your mood.

Usually the third film in a series shows signs of decline either in quality or inventiveness. Even the third 'Godfather' was significantly less than its predecessors. Universal's 'Frankenstein' series that began in the early 1930's was no exception and showed some wear by the end of the decade when 'Son of Frankenstein' was released. Under the sensitive direction of James Whale, the original 'Frankenstein' was a classic, and, in the first sequel, 'Bride of Frankenstein,' Whale even managed to better it. However, while Whale was not involved with 'Son,' the third installment turned out to be a surprisingly good movie even if it failed to match the two preceding films. Perhaps the major reason for the success of 'Son' was the casting of Basil Rathbone as Wolf Frankenstein, the original Baron's son. Rathbone is a fine strong actor, and his characterization certainly exceeds Colin Clive's somewhat colorless portrayal of his father in the preceding films. Rathbone holds the viewer's attention throughout as he becomes immersed in the legacy of his father and fails to comprehend the consequences of what he is doing. Boris Karloff returns for a third time as the monster. Although he does a fine job, there is less opportunity for the actor to show the range of emotion in this film that he displayed in 'Bride.' Another aspect of 'Son' that raises it above the ordinary is the set and lighting design, which owes a debt to German expressionism. The sets have bold diagonals in their construction, and the cameraman has lit them to cast equally bold shadows against bare walls and create abstract patterns that often recall 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.' The lighting and design of one particular section of a cave under the Frankenstein laboratory could have been blown up and framed as an expressionist photograph. Although it does not reach the heights of the Whale films, 'Son of Frankenstein' is a worthy successor and an engrossing film in its own right.