Universal Classic Monsters : The Essential Collection (Blu-ray)

[kidgloves]

How bad do I want this?

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/7298/classic_monsters_essential.html



1931: 'Dracula'
1931: 'Frankenstein'
1932: 'The Mummy'
1933: 'The Invisible Man'
1935: 'Bride of Frankenstein'
1941: 'The Wolf Man'
1943: 'Phantom of the Opera'
1954: 'Creature from the Black Lagoon'

[Neil]

The Creature From The Black Lagoon sort of seems out of place?

Personally I'd love to have seen more of the 1940s horror flicks. eg - "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" or "House of Frankenstein"?

[EvilNed]

The Wolf Man is my absolute favorite, followed by the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Frankenstein's OK, Dracula is boring. Can't remember anything from The Mummy and haven't seen the rest.

[MinionZombie]

1931: 'Dracula' - I was actually a bit disappointed in this flick. Certain parts I quite enjoyed, but overall I didn't get into it that much.
1931: 'Frankenstein' - classic, I've seen it a few times.
1932: 'The Mummy' - only seen it once, and that was ages ago, so I can't really remember much about it. I seem to remember it was pretty good though.
1933: 'The Invisible Man' - excellent flick. Great special effects, and superb opening, and surprisingly dark and violent for the period.
1935: 'Bride of Frankenstein' - another excellent flick. Really enjoyable, and perhaps better than the original Frankenstein.
1941: 'The Wolf Man' - again, another solid classic. When it comes to that character, this is where it's at.
1943: 'Phantom of the Opera' - I have not seen this one yet.
1954: 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' - again, I really enjoyed this one. It's inclusion does seem slightly 'out of place' compared to the others, but I suppose it's down to the iconic status of the creature, rather than chronological placement.

Aye, I imagine that's a very good set.

Here's a run down:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Universal-Classic-Monsters-The-Essential-Collection-Blu-ray/35661/#Review

[bassman]

I'll wait to catch it on a sale, but yeah.....definite purchase.

[MoonSylver]

Hurm. Been wanting the Universal Franchise Collection of Horror for some time, so this might be the way to go. As for the Creech,yeah, it's for his place in the Pantheon. ;)

[Neil]

At least, unlike the new Night 1990 bluray release, they won't be able to screw the colouring up :)

[Mike70]

I'm one of the biggest Universal geeks you'll ever meet. those flicks are what got me into horror and have defined it ever since.

I'm quite partial to "Son of Frankenstein", probably me fav of the lot. the original "Mummy" is great, "the Wolfman" is an outstanding film - i could go on for pages but won't.

- - - Updated - - -


The Creature From The Black Lagoon sort of seems out of place?

Personally I'd love to have seen more of the 1940s horror flicks. eg - "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" or "House of Frankenstein"?

it has always seemed that way to me. it was made way after most of the other flicks, is more in line with the 50's sci-fi flicks that were big drive-in faves back then. "Creature" has always been the outsider Universal movie for me. I will hardly ever pass up a chance to watch any of the Universal flicks except for "Creature", i've always been quite meh about it.

[krisvds]

Own this collection on DVD. What a fantastic set of films. My personal favourite is The Invisible Man. Some of the speeches the main character delivers are genious.

Damn shame they didn't include some of the other sequels to theit various franchises.
Son of Frankenstein is indeed fantastic.

[Neil]

AICN has an interesting piece on "Son of Frankenstein" - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58753

[EvilNed]

As a person who grew up with these films to some extent, although on fairness it was on VHS and much past their prime, I disagree that the Creature from the Black Lagoon feels out of place. To me, it's up there with the others. I'd probably list that one as a classic Universal horror film before I'd bring up the Invisible Man, for instance.

[MinionZombie]

As a person who grew up with these films to some extent, although on fairness it was on VHS and much past their prime, I disagree that the Creature from the Black Lagoon feels out of place. To me, it's up there with the others. I'd probably list that one as a classic Universal horror film before I'd bring up the Invisible Man, for instance.

In time it's out-of-place, but in type it's very much in-place.

If that makes sense? :)

[EvilNed]

Well, it's 10 years after most of them, but then again there's a 10 year gap between Wolf Man and Dracula / Frankenstein as well... Sooo...

[MinionZombie]

Well, it's 10 years after most of them, but then again there's a 10 year gap between Wolf Man and Dracula / Frankenstein as well... Sooo...

Was more meaning how the dates of the films are more tightly grouped from Dracula to Phantom of the Opera, by date, while Creature is a full 11 years after Phantom (the largest gap in the main lot is 6 years). What I'm trying to say is that Creature could be seen as somewhat of a 'throwback' flick to the 30s or 40s, while many other movies of the 1950s were focusing on giant insects and aliens, although Creature does have a different shift in that it's more about something that harks back to a period in evolution that is long forgotten, whereas the other flicks are the effects of mad scientists or folklore. In a way the 'mad science' has a foot in the 1950s too ... but lest I ramble on, I circle back to my first two sentences.

It's also like how there's an ideological, stylistic and thematic shift from, say, Scream in 1996 to Hostel in 2005 (shifts come faster these days).

Personally though, I'd still consider Creature to be more a part of the classic monsters series (albeit a late entry when many other films were doing 'newer' things), than the main apparent thrust of 1950s sci-fi/horror.

[shootemindehead]

Without doubt, the greatest film in that collection is 'Frankenstein'. It never gets old and to me it far outstrips the sequel, which is often deemed the better film. I must confess, I have no idea why. I've always found it a much lesser item, with parts that are just unforgivably stupid, like Dr. Pretorius and his jam jar creations.

@Mike: Can't believe you're "meh" with the creature!

[Mike70]

In time it's out-of-place, but in type it's very much in-place.

If that makes sense? :)

are you like the Confucius of horror? MZ say...:lol:

i get what you mean.

- - - Updated - - -




@Mike: Can't believe you're "meh" with the creature!

to be honest, i have always been surprised too but for some reason that one just doesn't do it for me. i should like the film, maybe not as much as "Son of Frankenstein" or "The Mummy", but i should at least like it. movie tastes are weird sometimes, huh?

you know what is an awesome and quite creepy for its time flick that i don't think i've seen mentioned yet? "The Black Cat" i think that might have been Lugosi and Karloff's first movie together.

[wayzim]

I'm one of the biggest Universal geeks you'll ever meet. those flicks are what got me into horror and have defined it ever since.

I'm quite partial to "Son of Frankenstein", probably me fav of the lot. the original "Mummy" is great, "the Wolfman" is an outstanding film - i could go on for pages but won't.

- - - Updated - - -



it has always seemed that way to me. it was made way after most of the other flicks, is more in line with the 50's sci-fi flicks that were big drive-in faves back then. "Creature" has always been the outsider Universal movie for me. I will hardly ever pass up a chance to watch any of the Universal flicks except for "Creature", i've always been quite meh about it.

And you did know that the 'Outsider. ' Creature From The Black Lagoon movie has been credited over the years with saving Universal during a studio financial crisis around that time? Yes? So serious props to The Gill Man are required here. He also had the coolest monster suit for the times ( actually for any times ) with Ricou Browning doing some amazing underwater work.
And naturally there's Julia Adams who ( along with Anne Francis from Forbidden Planet ) seriously informed my libedo during my formative years with her very sexy swimsuit. Yep I got great respect for this film - though the sequels were of diminishing returns.

Wayne Z
"This ain't no midnight horror flick or creature double feature, babe. "

the story DeadFall; Foreshadow

[shootemindehead]

to be honest, i have always been surprised too but for some reason that one just doesn't do it for me. i should like the film, maybe not as much as "Son of Frankenstein" or "The Mummy", but i should at least like it. movie tastes are weird sometimes, huh?

Well, there's no accounting for taste. Sure there's people on here that think I like nothing, ever...except 'Day of the Dead'.

Moonsylver...I'm looking at you young man!


you know what is an awesome and quite creepy for its time flick that i don't think i've seen mentioned yet? "The Black Cat" i think that might have been Lugosi and Karloff's first movie together.

I saw 'The Black Cat' and 'Island of Lost Souls' as a double bill of horror on TV one night as a kid. Can't remember anything about them though, other than not wanting to go to bed until they were over.

[wayzim]

Well, there's no accounting for taste. Sure there's people on here that think I like nothing, ever...except 'Day of the Dead'.

Moonsylver...I'm looking at you young man!



I saw 'The Black Cat' and 'Island of Lost Souls' as a double bill of horror on TV one night as a kid. Can't remember anything about them though, other than not wanting to go to bed until they were over.

I don't remember seeing The Black Cat on TV in seemingly forever - don't have that one in my collection (regrettably ). I recently went on a mini binge with some of my old AMC Halloween Horror tapes. Island of Lost Soul, Bedlam and Isle of The Dead ( almost non horror Val Lewton films ) Creature From The Black Lagoon, a few Frankensteins and of course The Wolfman, followed by Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman.

The double billing I currently missing is House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula ( John Carradine in a top hat - very cool ) with scientist trying to cure vampirism long before John Neville (I Am Legend )came on the scene.

Wayne Z

[MoonSylver]

Well, there's no accounting for taste. Sure there's people on here that think I like nothing, ever...except 'Day of the Dead'.

Moonsylver...I'm looking at you young man!

:rockbrow:...

http://assets.denimblog.com/b/bd/bdb6d827_youtalkintome2.gif

I don't like that.

:lol:

[MinionZombie]

are you like the Confucius of horror? MZ say...:lol:

you know what is an awesome and quite creepy for its time flick that i don't think i've seen mentioned yet? "The Black Cat" i think that might have been Lugosi and Karloff's first movie together.

1) :lol::lol::lol:

2) The Black Cat - heard a lot of things about it, and aside from a couple of set pieces that I can appreciate, it bored me rigid. I was surprised by that and let down. Meanwhile my Dad watched it on TV as a kid, or he saw it in a movie theater on a re-run, can't remember which, and he was scared stiff by it.


And you did know that the 'Outsider. ' Creature From The Black Lagoon movie has been credited over the years with saving Universal during a studio financial crisis around that time? Yes? So serious props to The Gill Man are required here. He also had the coolest monster suit for the times ( actually for any times ) with Ricou Browning doing some amazing underwater work.
And naturally there's Julia Adams who ( along with Anne Francis from Forbidden Planet ) seriously informed my libedo during my formative years with her very sexy swimsuit. Yep I got great respect for this film - though the sequels were of diminishing returns.

1) An interesting tidbit of info there, cool!

2) While I only saw this movie for the first time very recently, Julia Adams was gorgeous in the flick. :)

[Kaos]

I'll be watching a couple of these blu-rays tonight.

[MinionZombie]

Here's a clip of a restoration doc about Dracula...

6Ucjvu63VfY&hd=1

[LouCipherr]

At least, unlike the new Night 1990 bluray release, they won't be able to screw the colouring up :)

Hey, ya never know, all these films might end up B&W after the remastering.... y'know, BLUE & WHITE! :elol:


In time it's out-of-place, but in type it's very much in-place.

If that makes sense? :)

Yes, Confucius....errrr, MZ is correct. :shifty:


Here's a clip of a restoration doc about Dracula...

Now THAT is how you remaster (and restore) a film. Do it right or don't do it at all. Some of these other movie companies should take note.

[Eyebiter]

Turner Classic movies shows the Universal Monster movies every year.

House of Dracula (1945) is on tonight.
"A mad scientist's experiments attract Dracula, the Wolf Man and the Frankenstein monster."

This year on Halloween they have Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, The Invisible Man (among others).
http://www.tcm.com/schedule/october2012.html

[bassman]

Just found out that my local independent theater will be showing many of these throughout the month. Going to see The Mummy this weekend. :thumbsup:

[Mr. Clean]

Oddly enough....I still do not have a blue ray player. :(

Not really sure what I'm waiting on at this point....Orginally, everything was way too expensive but now everything is quite affordable...

[Neil]

Here's a clip of a restoration doc about Dracula...
Wow! And has that been doen to all the films in this collection?

[MinionZombie]

Now THAT is how you remaster (and restore) a film. Do it right or don't do it at all. Some of these other movie companies should take note.

Darn tootin' ... a fantastic recent example is Jaws - the blu-ray of that looks incredibly good. Absolutely fantastic - but also, just as importantly - they included the original 2.0 audio along with the new 7.1 audio (I prefer the former, personally). Picture wise it's just gorgeous - there's a doc about how they restored it, and it was fascinating to see how they do such a process, and it was great to see the sheer amount of love and attention lavished on the film. A true restoration. :)


Oddly enough....I still do not have a blue ray player. :(

Not really sure what I'm waiting on at this point....Orginally, everything was way too expensive but now everything is quite affordable...

I've been into blu-ray for a couple of years now and have slowly been building my collection. It's a must-move for folks like me who are all about special features, because it's mostly par-for-the-course that the Blu-Ray version has all the extras, while the DVD gets shafted with a couple of things. For example, the up-coming 3-disc Blu-Ray (not the "standard blu-ray") of Prometheus has seven hours of extras, while the DVD only has the deleted scenes.

You can also get some gorgeous restorations, but there are some flicks that just get chucked out there too, but I'm glad I upgraded. I can upscale my large DVD collection, but now also benefit from blu-ray which - as you say - is now at a standard price. Here in the UK you'll find a new release DVD at £10 while the Blu-Ray equivalent will be £15 (sometimes cheaper, sometimes pricier, depending on the situation), so particularly now there's not really the 'premium price' argument going against it anymore. You can even pick up a BR player quite cheap these days too.


Wow! And has that been doen to all the films in this collection?

Erm, I assume so. Not specifically informed on that, but follow the Blu-Ray.com link I posted a few posts back and you'll find info on the restoration quality of each flick there. :)

[kidgloves]

Just taken the plunge and bought the Limited Edition. Very nice

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universal-Classic-Monsters-Collection-Limited/dp/B008R8E8VY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349287714&sr=8-2

http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i428/redeyethecylon/UniversalMonstersCoffin.jpg

[shootemindehead]

Oddly enough....I still do not have a blue ray player. :(

Not really sure what I'm waiting on at this point....Orginally, everything was way too expensive but now everything is quite affordable...

To be honest Clean, unless you have a tele that's over 40", you probably won't notice that much difference between a Blu and a DVD.

[Mike70]

Just found out that my local independent theater will be showing many of these throughout the month. Going to see The Mummy this weekend. :thumbsup:


please take this as the kind hearted gesture it is: fuck you, man and your local theatre, the horse they rode in on, the dude who trained the horse and the guy who bred the horse. :lol:

that's sheer jealousy talking there. seems like every other month that place has something uber cool. we used to have a place like that and now we don't so:moon:

[LouCipherr]

Darn tootin' ... a fantastic recent example is Jaws - the blu-ray of that looks incredibly good. Absolutely fantastic - but also, just as importantly - they included the original 2.0 audio along with the new 7.1 audio (I prefer the former, personally). Picture wise it's just gorgeous - there's a doc about how they restored it, and it was fascinating to see how they do such a process, and it was great to see the sheer amount of love and attention lavished on the film. A true restoration. :)

Yes, that is a prime example of how a restoration/remastering for HD should be done. I've seen FAR too many standard def DVD masters just get slapped onto BR discs and they call it "high def"

Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:

Hence why I will never just go out and buy a BR disc until I've either seen it myself or read a glowing review about the transfer (no so worried about their review of the movie).



PS - The shark is still working! :shifty: :lol:

[MoonSylver]

Oddly enough....I still do not have a blue ray player. :(

Not really sure what I'm waiting on at this point....Orginally, everything was way too expensive but now everything is quite affordable...

Only reason's I bought one was
A) the players can be had for under $100 now,
B) to take advantage of all the deals that pop up on Blu discs (just scored "Hatchet II" for $7.50 the other night at Walmart! :eek: Same w/ "House of 1000 Corpses" & "Devils Rejects" a few months back)
C) Revenge. One more step on my long road of total "fuck you" to the ex, since I can afford one & she can't. :fin: :lol:

[Neil]

This is only £36 at Amazon Uk at the moment - Very tempted!

[kidgloves]

This is only £36 at Amazon Uk at the moment - Very tempted!

Thats the standard edition Neil. Go for it.

Started working my way through this with the Dracula blu first. The PQ is phenomenal for the age of the movie and to put it into context this was made not long after silent movies were being phased out and "talkies" were being introduced. Been through Dracula twice. Once with commentary and without. The commentary is great. Very matter of fact but is full of info. Gonna watch the Spanish version tonight which was shot at the same time using the same set and is supposed to be the superior movie.
A great set.

[Neil]

^^ My treat (to myself) as a young kid, was to go upto bed, and stay up late to watch these old B&W horror movies on BBC2 in my bedroom! Loved them!

[Mike70]

just a heads up: "Frankenstein" and "The Bride of Frankenstein" are being shown as a double feature weds. night at 7pm. cinemas all over the country are having showings. It is sponsored by TCM.

http://www.fathomevents.com/classics/event/tcmfrankensteins.aspx?gclid=CMne1ZHHkrMCFegWMgodID AAaQ

there is a link on this page to places in each state that are showing the double feature.

[Kaos]

just a heads up: "Frankenstein" and "The Bride of Frankenstein" are being shown as a double feature weds. night at 7pm. cinemas all over the country are having showings. It is sponsored by TCM.

http://www.fathomevents.com/classics/event/tcmfrankensteins.aspx?gclid=CMne1ZHHkrMCFegWMgodID AAaQ

there is a link on this page to places in each state that are showing the double feature.

Yep, taking my family to see it on Wednesday. Should be a blast.

[Mike70]

Yep, taking my family to see it on Wednesday. Should be a blast.

Last night was great. TCM did an excellent job with the whole thing.

the old saying that a you've never seen a movie until you've seen it on the big screen is true as ever. I've seen "Frankenstein" a million times on tiv but last night i actually saw it for the first time. great performances jump off the screen. the intensity of Colin Clive and Boris Karloff's performances are both revealed in ways the tv cannot convey. the other thing lost on tv is the cinematography and the way that it is used to make the monster look huge on the screen. the iconic scene where the monster backs into the room, turns and is revealed for the first time has a much greater impact because of the way it was shot to overwhelm the screen. i could go on and on but won't.

"Bride" was a blast too. much lighter in tone than the first movie.

[Neil]

I'm getting so many flash backs to my childhood here. I LOVED going to bed on a Saturday night knowing a few hours later they'd be showing one or two of these classic old films. I'd wait in my bedroom, passing the time, until around midnight the film(s) would start and I'd secretly watch them on the TV in my room... loving every minute of them!

Happy times!

[Kaos]

Last night was great. TCM did an excellent job with the whole thing.

the old saying that a you've never seen a movie until you've seen it on the big screen is true as ever. I've seen "Frankenstein" a million times on tiv but last night i actually saw it for the first time. great performances jump off the screen. the intensity of Colin Clive and Boris Karloff's performances are both revealed in ways the tv cannot convey. the other thing lost on tv is the cinematography and the way that it is used to make the monster look huge on the screen. the iconic scene where the monster backs into the room, turns and is revealed for the first time has a much greater impact because of the way it was shot to overwhelm the screen. i could go on and on but won't.

"Bride" was a blast too. much lighter in tone than the first movie.

Agreed, TCM did a great job. We really enjoyed both movies. Although I couldn't help but giggle during the blind hermit scene in Bride because I couldn't get Gene Hackman's spoof in Young Frankenstein out of my mind.

[kidgloves]

I don't know if anyone here has watched Dracula recently but its a very very rough movie. There were rumours that the director was drunk/absent at the helm and it shows. The step up in quality to Frankenstein is remarkable when you watch one after the other.

[MinionZombie]

I don't know if anyone here has watched Dracula recently but its a very very rough movie. There were rumours that the director was drunk/absent at the helm and it shows. The step up in quality to Frankenstein is remarkable when you watch one after the other.

Aye, I didn't get around to Dracula for a good while (but I'd seen the likes of Frankenstein years prior), and once I'd seen it I thought "this is what all the fuss was about?!" - there's numerous good parts to the movie, but overall it's pretty shonky. James Whale's a ruddy master of the universal monster movies. I'm in agreement with you about the step-up in quality when Frankenstein rolled around.

[EvilNed]

Best part of Dracula?

"Dracula is in the house!"

[Chorus]"In the house!?"

[shootemindehead]

The 1931 'Dracula' is a pretty dreadful film and it only has a place in history because of its age really, and its charismatic star too, I suppose. It's completely blown out of the water by 'Frankenstein', which continues to surprise audiences even today.

'Dracula' had a somewhat troubled production, which accounts for its underwhelming effect. I also think that Browning disliked Lugosi, which didn't help. He wanted Lon Chaney to be the star, but Chaney was brown bread at that stage.

It's also hampered by annoying silent era type acting.

[Mike70]

now if only someone would show "Son of Frankenstein", i could leave this world satisfied as far as movie viewing goes. that is probably my fav of the entire lot.

as for "dracula", i'm rather meh about it. "Dracula's Daughter" is a much, much better movie.

- - - Updated - - -


The 1931 'Dracula' is a pretty dreadful film and it only has a place in history because of its age really, and its charismatic star too, I suppose. It's completely blown out of the water by 'Frankenstein', which continues to surprise audiences even today.

Dracula is just creaky and and somewhere in this thread the "silent style" of acting is mentioned. i think that hits it right on the head. the movie has no punch to it, things move from one place to another much too fast for that sort of production and all in all, just has a rather empty feel to it. plus, it feels much too much like a play that was simply shot to film. Lugosi was much better as Igor in some of the Frankenstein sequels.

your point about "Frankenstein" is dead on. i was blown away by seeing it on the big screen even after having watched it about a million times (The Frankenstein movies are things i never pass up a chance to watch - in my opinion the best series of movies that's been done). I think i said in my original post about seeing the double feature that Colin Clive and Boris Karloff's performances jump off the screen and their intensity is amazing.

on another note: I've always been quite partial to "the mummy." the hammer version of that is one of their better movies.

[shootemindehead]

I've read that Browning just filmed the portions of the script that he liked and disregarded the rest. That may account for the choppy nature of 'Dracula'. In fact, I've read that Browning left much of the film to another person a lot of the time.

[kidgloves]

I've read that Browning just filmed the portions of the script that he liked and disregarded the rest. That may account for the choppy nature of 'Dracula'. In fact, I've read that Browning left much of the film to another person a lot of the time.

The Spanish version is a much more coherent film. The star is no Bela Lugosi though and it stands out a lot after seeing Lugosi's performance in the English version.

[shootemindehead]

I've never seen the Spanish version Kid. I understand that it was all shot on the same sets. There were some clips on YouTube and you're right, he ain't no Bela.

[kidgloves]

I've never seen the Spanish version Kid. I understand that it was all shot on the same sets. There were some clips on YouTube and you're right, he ain't no Bela.

Yeah. They shot the English version during the day and the Spanish one at night. Was common practice apparently those days as dubbing was considered to be "cheating". Its really interesting to watch one after the other and seeing the 2 different takes on the same scenes.