I didnt think Lugosi was that bad
-
Mr_McLaurel — 16 years ago(October 16, 2009 10:22 AM)
In my opinion, any time you have Bela Lugosi but don't utilize his voice, you're not capitalizing on Lugosi's full potential. See also: The Mark of the Vampire. Still a fun movie though - 8/10.
What's the Spanish for drunken bum? -
Catfishbunter — 16 years ago(October 27, 2009 11:31 PM)
I think fritzfassbender makes the best point about this.
I am a huge Bela Lugosi fan, in fact I have probably sat through a dozen terrible movies just to see him in them. But the finished product of his Frankenstein monster is not very good. In fact, it is pretty laughable at some points in the film. But as fritzfassbender and others have pointed out, he got a pretty raw deal since he was told to play the part blind. That being said, this is more of an editing/directing flaw than Lugosi acting poorly.
His size was also distracting for the part. Even though he was taller than Karloff, Karloff was a little more fit and also wore stilt-like boots for the role. Lugosi's monster is really stocky, looks short, and just doesn't seem to be as intimidating as the monsters in other film.
Despite these flaws, I really thought the movie was quite good. Probably the best Universal Horror film sequel since "The Bride of Frankenstein." Chaney is just a great fit for these films, and provides a really sympathetic element to the Wolf Man. The script was not bad for a sequel, and the movie didn't just jump right into the scares/action. It allowed the story to develop, brought back the best parts of "The Wolf Man" (Chaney as the wolf man and the gypsy Maleva), and even improved on portions of the werewolf lore (like Talbot turning into a wolf man only during a full moon as opposed to the seemingly random transformations of the first film). All in all, I thought the movie was a very strong film in and of itself. -
wallacesawyer — 16 years ago(October 30, 2009 09:41 PM)
I had no reason to complain about his performance.
For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/ -
simeon_flake — 11 years ago(December 21, 2014 06:51 AM)
Yeah, I find it hard to really rate Bela's performance as the Monster given all the butchering the film had done to it. Who knows, maybe if the usually great Siodmak hadn't written such crappy dialogue for the Monster, we could have gotten the chance to see the complete performance.
Stillgiven all the inherit flawsI find FMTWM to be a very entertaining horror. The Wolf Man portion of the film definitely ups the grade on the film a lot. -
cybopath — 16 years ago(October 31, 2009 06:15 AM)
I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up. Nor did the creature have much to do also the 60 year old actor had to be doubled most of the time during the fights and opening sequence. Over all it was a waist of Lugosi a big stunt man like Glenn Strange would have been better, its the equivalent of having Micheal Keaton play Jason Voorhess.
-
tbrittreid — 16 years ago(October 31, 2009 01:22 PM)
cybopath:
I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up. Nor did the creature have much to do also the 60 year old actor had to be doubled most of the time during the fights and opening sequence. Over all it was a waist of Lugosi a big stunt man like Glenn Strange would have been better, its the equivalent of having Micheal Keaton play Jason Voorhess.
Yes, I have never understood why the Monster was given so little to do once the decidedly physical Strange took over. And you're also right about Bela's sharp features, which make it obvious when he's being doubled. Why the hell didn't Lugosi do that opening (for the Monster) close-up? He's just there, leaning back against the "ice" wall behind him, for Pete's sake!
The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again! -
zeta1983-1 — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 06:45 PM)
The Frankenstein monster hardly did anything in this movie. It should have been called The Wolfman II, cameo by Frankenstein's monster. It wasn't a terrible performance but the difference from the original Frankenstein movie was very noticeable.
-
Signmanj — 7 years ago(January 06, 2019 05:53 PM)
The worst monster was Chaney's hr did nothing in ghost to me. Glenn strange took lessons from Boris yet the arms were stretched….can't understand what lessons Karloff gave him
.I did love stranger makeup though. -
westsalemcongress — 14 years ago(August 23, 2011 11:42 AM)
I totally agree with the above poster:
"I just don't think Lugosi's sharp features worked well in the make-up."
Lugosi did not have the face for the Frankenstein monster. The close-up shots of the monster's face are unintentionally humorous. This giant hulking monster with those squinty beady little eyes is too much of a mismatch. -
Negasonic_WoodChipper_Warhead — 10 years ago(October 06, 2015 07:10 AM)
Certainly not the best version of the monster, but taking into account that Legosi was playing him as being blind, it explains the often outstretched arms.
It's true! I chopped him up. But I didn't kill him! -
Skye_Reynolds — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 10:28 AM)
It was a weak performance, but I don't think it was his fault. The makeup was dreadful with that sloped forehead and the writing was bad on his end. The Ghost of Frankenstein made a huge mistake by placing Ygor's brain in the monster's body and this film had to live with the consequences of it. Even if they cut out his dialogue, he's still clearly seen moving his lips as if talking. And by cutting out the conversation, his role in the movie is regrettably.
It's a shame that they couldn't have cut from Son of Frankenstein to this film, but then we never would have had the lovely Baroness Elsa Frankenstein.