I thought we already had a thread devoted to this, but I guess not. Some of y'all may recall how, over on the Van Helsing thread, we discussed how Universal had released three 2-disc sets, one devoted to each of the monsters featured in that film (Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man), and each set containing four to five classic films featuring that monster. (I use the word "classic" loosely -- in most cases, only the original film featuring that monster was a classic, and the three or four sequels that followed were presumably quite shlocky; then again, Bride of Frankenstein is, of course, recognized as one of the best sequels ever, and is regarded by many as superior to the original film.) I was even more impressed with these sets when I checked them out at my priest's place, the last time I was there; the sets are actually packaged quite handsomely, and solidly, considering they cost about the same as any regular one-movie disc these days.

Anyway, today I was at the store and discovered that there are now three NEW entries in the series. Creature from the Black Lagoon is sorta the odd one out, since it's a '50s franchise and the others all date to the '30s and '40s. There is also The Mummy. But the one set I would love to get, above all others, is the one for the Invisible Man -- old-fashioned special effects and Claude Rains are a potent combination in my books, plus I've always had an invisibility fetish, going back to when I was a kid and leaving clothes stretched out over seats and chairs to give the impression that there were invisible people sitting there in them.

If I wasn't already purchasing the new Mulan and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers DVDs, and if I wasn't planning on getting the new Looney Tunes or Star Trek: The Original Series sets in the immediate future, I'd be strongly tempted to pick at least one of these sets up. But I may have to let people know that this is a Christmas item ...

Certainly The Invisible Man is the must-have out of the three. Whales's original film has worn surprisingly well, and the special effects are fairly impressive for 1933.

I suppose as usual the Region 2 edition will have only half the content of the Region 1.

Here's a bizarre thing. While shopping online for a birthday present for my wife, I discovered that Amazon.ca was selling the first three sets in this series -- Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man -- for about CDN$33 each ... but for only CDN$48, you could get all three in a gift set, and with some utterly gratuitous paperweights (er, I mean, "Exclusive Hand-Cast, Hand-Painted Busts of Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man from the Award-Winning Sideshow Collectibles Creative Team") as well. Well, my wife likes Dracula, and I've been eyeing the Frankenstein set for a while, so obviously, I had to get this; even if it DIDN'T include The Wolf Man or the paperweights, it would still be a discount.

This leaves me wondering what I should do about the other three sets. The Invisible Man is definitely desirable, still, though Amazon.ca and FutureShop.ca don't seem to have it in stock any more. (Though Amazon.com still has it, if I don't mind paying customs fees.) The Mummy -- which is also out of stock in Canada but in stock in America -- is a curiosity, for my purposes, since my wife is a big fan of the 1999 remake but doesn't care for the 1932 original, and I personally have no reason to invest in the set right now either, except for completist and/or curiosity purposes. And then there is Creature from the Black Lagoon (which the Canadian store DOES have in stock), which is a 1950s movie and doesn't really belong with any of the others.

For as long as I can remember, The Creature From The Black Lagoon has always been included in Universal's gallery of monsters. When I was a boy, every monster magazine I bought (and I bought a lot!) contained pictures of Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, the Wolfman, the Mummy, and what was sometimes referred to as "The Gill-man". Of course, every photo of the creature/gill-man also featured Julie Adams in that rather amazing swimsuit.

What order should I watch these films in?

I posed this question the other day to my priest, who has all of these DVDs himself, and he laughed and said, "It's a good problem to have."

My memory of some of these films is fuzzy, but I am pretty sure that I have seen all of them except the 1946 She-Wolf of London (I have to admit that I didn't actually know there was a movie by that name. I only knew of the 1990 TV series).

I personally think that it makes the most sense to watch your films in the order in which they were originally released. Things might get pretty confusing otherwise. This also enables you to watch the two bona fide masterpieces in the collection - the first two Frankensteins - back to back. Bride of Frankenstein is as good as it gets. It boasts gallows humour (the camp Ernest Thesiger is a laugh riot), amazing sets influenced by German expressionism, memorable dialogue, and a wonderfully poignant performance from Boris Karloff as the monster (for my money, the best of his career).

I am less keen on the Lugosi Dracula these days as I find the production a little stagy. Does your DVD contain the ultra-rare closing scene in which Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing steps out from behind a curtain to inform the cinema audience that vampires actually do exist? I keep reading that the scene is lost, but I have seen it so this can't actually be so.

Dracula's Daughter (which I haven't seen in years) is a rather peculiar sequel in that Edward Van Sloan returns as Van Helsing but Lugosi stays dead and buried. It is actually pretty good and highly culty these days.

The Wolfman is a personal favourite, but it's not exactly a classic. I saw it again recently and it's still a heck of a lot of fun. No one in monster movies ever looked as perpetually sad as Lon Chaney Jr.

With the possible exception of The Werewolf of London, I find the films in the set from The Ghost of Frankenstein onwards less impressive.

The Invisible Man wrote:
: I personally think that it makes the most sense to watch your films in the
: order in which they were originally released. Things might get pretty
: confusing otherwise.

They might also get pretty confusing if I hop around from one franchise to another! But yeah, chronological may be the best way to go. (I think I faced a similar dilemma a few years ago when I toyed with watching all the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street films, back when I was thinking of seeing Freddy Vs. Jason in 2003. But after watching the first four Fridays, which span 1980 to 1984, and the first Nightmare, which came out in 1984, I lost interest; I still haven't seen any of the other films, except for Jason X, which I actually caught during its initial release in 2001.)

: I am less keen on the Lugosi Dracula these days as I find the production a
: little stagy. Does your DVD contain the ultra-rare closing scene in which
: Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing steps out from behind a curtain to inform
: the cinema audience that vampires actually do exist? I keep reading that
: the scene is lost, but I have seen it so this can't actually be so.

I haven't watched the film itself yet, but the making-of includes a few seconds of that closing scene -- basically just the punchline. The lines leading up to that punchline are recited by the host/narrator of the documentary.