House of Frankenstein (1944) - film review

Not everyone approves of Dr Gustav Niemann’s hobby of transplanting human brains into the bodies of domestic animals, which is why he is currently safely locked away in a prison for the criminally insane.  A devotee of the work of Dr Frankenstein, Niemann can hardly wait to resume his experiments.  Fate gives him a helping hand in the form of a lightning bolt which demolishes his prison.  Accompanied by a friendly hunchback named Daniel, Niemann makes good his escape and heads for Visaria, where he hopes to take a cruel revenge on those who had him put away.  On the way, he runs into Lampini’s travelling horror show, whose exhibits include the skeleton of Dracula.  Having disposed of Lampini, Niemann revives the vampire by removing the stake from its heart and sends it after Herr Hussmann, the man who had him imprisoned.  When Dracula gets up to his old tricks, abducting Hussmann’s attractive daughter-in-law and ruining her honeymoon, Niemann ends their alliance and makes for Visaria.  Here, whilst exploring the ruins of Frankenstein’s castle, the mad scientist discovers an ice cave which contains the perfectly preserved bodies of Frankenstein’s monster and the Wolf Man, a.k.a. Larry Talbot.   The latter is none to pleased to be awoken from his long sleep, since every time there is a full moon he is transformed into a ravaging murderous beast.  Niemann promises Talbot that he will cure him of his affliction by transplanting his brain into another body.  Niemann has made the same promise to Daniel, who believes that a new body will improve his chances with gypsy girl Ilonka.   Naturally, Niemann has no intention of keeping either promise.  His first priority is to reanimate Frankenstein’s monster and put into it the brain of one of his old enemies.  Unfortunately, the night which he chooses for this demonic endeavour happens to be one in which the moon is full...

By the mid-1940s, Universal Pictures regarded their Gothic horror films as money for old rope and instead of developing the series with original storylines made with the flair of its earlier horror offerings the studio was content merely to recycle material in the hope of making a fast buck.  This explains why the later films in the series feel like reheated leftovers, palatable enough but far less satisfying than what had gone before.  Having brought together two of their most successful horror creations in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), Universal immediately followed this up with another of their so-called monster rallies, this time with Dracula thrown in to the mix.  And "thrown in" is precisely the right turn of phrase.

House of Frankenstein is virtually an exact rerun of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. In fact, the basic plot (which involves some misguided individual trying to reanimate the monster for his own ends) had been used in the previous three or four Frankenstein films.  The only significant departure here from Universal’s previous multi-monster offering was the insertion of a twenty minute warm-up sequence in which Dracula is resurrected and then despatched with unseemly haste.  No sooner has the vampiric fiend been brought back from the dead, he is once more seen to kick the bucket. One bite and you’re out - hardly the most inspired use of Bram Stoker’s creation.

After this brief and rather pointless vampire detour, the film replays Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man with almost slavish precision.  True, there are a few minor alterations.  Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre-Dame is reincarnated as a lovelorn freak who gets the hump when his gypsy sweetheart passes him over because she prefers lycanthropes.   The ensuing love triangle offers a few moments of real poignancy, but these are soon sacrificed in the interests of cheap horror thrills.   

The film’s production values are impressive for what is really just a cheap B-movie money spinner, although there is obviously far less commitment than on Universal’s previous Gothic horrors.  The sub-mediocre script is salvaged by the enjoyable performances from a respectable cast who, to the film’s credit, tacitly avoid sending up what is a rather silly storyline.  Boris Karloff is superlative as the creepy Dr Niemann, appropriately trying to resurrect the monster which he himself animated in Universal’s original Frankenstein (1931). 

Lon Chaney Jr. returns as the character for which he is best known, the Wolf Man, although by this stage his character’s relentless self-pitying is so grating that you just wish that someone would put him out of his misery, preferably with a silver-tipped bazooka shell fired at point-blank range.   John Carradine is barely on screen long enough for us to appreciate his version of Dracula, although he obviously lacks the presence of Lugosi and must rank as one of cinema’s most anaemic vampires.  J. Carrol Naish wins the award for the most sympathetic performance, as the hunchback with a heart.  Making his debut as the Frankenstein monster is Glenn Strange, although he doesn’t do much other than the usual robotic rant, mainly because he doesn’t come to life until five minutes before the film ends.  You can’t help wondering what brief the screenwriters were given for this film. It must have been something like: make sure you include Dracula, the Wolf Man and the Frankenstein Monster, but keep them well separated and give them as little to do as possible...

House of Frankenstein may be one of the weaker entries in Universal’s horror series, but this doesn’t prevent it from being fun.  Even when the screenwriters were happy merely to regurgitate old ideas and reinforce the famous clichés, there is still some magic to be found in that eerie black-and-white Gothic fantasy world that Universal created for us.  The plots may be as well-worn as the floor coverings at Hampton Court Palace, the later films may have been made for the most cynical of motives, but who can fail to take delight in the sight of the old horror icons as they emerge from their shadowy cobwebbed lairs to chill and thrill us?

© Alex Sullivan 2010

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?