Tacticalin
An absolute waste of money
Maidexpl
Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast
Tayloriona
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Marva
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
weezeralfalfa
Actually, among my least favorite Abbott and Costello(A&C) films, and I've seen them all, saving this most popular one for last. On the other hand, I can see where it might appeal to children of a certain age group(not too young), who are scared seeing people with strange, intimidating, attributes. A film that includes Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's monster, sometimes interacting with each other, does provide more interest than a film with only one of these. However, the Wolf Man was very slow and clumsy in chasing Costello. Frankenstein's monster, as expected, walked stiff legged and armed, rather like a subpar mechanical robot of latter times. He was quite inaccurate in throwing multiple barrels at A&C near the end. I'd rather face any of these monsters, as shown, than an angry mother bear, for example. I found the typical A&C humor minimal. As typical in their monster movies, for most of the film, Costello has occasional interactions with the monsters, but they disappear every time Costello drags Abbott to see them, and Abbott remains a Doubting Thomas. This gets tiresome after a while.
Smoreni Zmaj
This line is already a cliché, but here we go again - for it's time and genre this movie is real gem. Once again we have Lugosi as Dracula, Chaney as Wolfman and Frankenstein monster all together in one movie, but this time, instead of horror classic, we have Abbott and Costello comedy, and I must say I prefer this approach. It's not Oscar material, but it's 80 minutes of pure fun.8/10
calvinnme
Aside from the fact that the comedy team itself is in peak form here, the actors playing the monsters are allowed to play it straight and are all seen to great effect. Glenn Strange as the Monster has more screen time in this film than the Houses of Frankenstein and Dracula combined and his portrayal has to be the most brutish and inhuman of those performed by the various actors who took on the role at Universal. The fact that most viewers are not familiar with Strange's face, too, adds to his authenticity in the role, I feel.With Karloff, Chaney, and Lugosi you can see their well known faces though the Frankenstein makeup, and are conscious of the fact that they are playing the part. But seeing the unknown Strange's face in the same role twigs no recognition for the viewer, helping to accept him in the role even more so. At least, that's how I see it.Lugosi is at the last great peak of his career in this film in what was only his second time to play Count Dracula. (He was Dracula in Return of the Vampire in all but name, of course). Heavily made up because of his aging features, that white pasty face only enhances his other worldliness as the Count. Bela, of course, also brought an aristocratic dignity to the role.It's a shame that this terrific performance by Lugosi did not lead to him being hot and back in demand again in Hollywood but it didn't. Horror films were becoming passe and Lugosi, unlike Karloff, was only associated with that genre. Adding to the insult, though, when it came to promoting A & C Meet Frankenstein, Universal didn't ask Lugosi to participate, even though he was a key star in the film's success. Instead the studio asked Karloff to do it.Finally, I never found Lon Chaney more effective in the dual role of Larry Talbot and the Wolf Man. One of the reasons for this is that I think the Bud Westmore Wolf Man makeup that he wore in this film is more effective than the Jack Pierce makeup he had on in his previous outings as the hirsute one. Chaney hated the Pierce makeup because it took so long to apply it (his all time hatred for makeup applications was that of the Mummy, by the way, which took even longer to put on).I'd recommend it. The two Universal franchises of the 40's - Abbott and Costello and the remainder of Universal horror - blend effectively here.
Robert J. Maxwell
I enjoyed this very much when I was a kid. I still enjoyed it twenty years later. Now much of it just seems silly, but it's still the best of the "Meet Monsters" movies. How can you go wrong with the original Dracula (Lugosi), the original Wolfman (Chaney, Jr.) and two lovely maidens, the sinister Lenore Aubert and the still sexy and mellifluous Jane Randolph. Boris Karloff was elsewhere, so the monster is played -- or played up -- by Glenn Strange, usually a bartender in cheap Westerns. True, the careers of most of the principals was on a downward trajectory, but so what? None seems to have lost his or her charm.The careers of Abbott and Costello were revived by this film but it was a dead cat bounce. Each sequel, each meeting with another of the Universal Studio monsters, was less innovative and enjoyable than this one. Besides, the two characters were pitched at a level that few people over the age of fifteen could get a kick out of. Who wants to watch tall, snarling, Bud Abbott kicking around short, plump, Lou Costello? Slapping him across the face and excoriating him at every opportunity. Certainly not us short, plump men! Most memorable scene, for adults, is the climax. It's a lot of slapstick but at moments comes to resemble late Marx Brothers. The funniest incident in the movie may be when Costello, in the middle of a frenzied brawl, yanks a tablecloth out from under a dinner service that remains in place. He stops for a second, stunned, glances at the camera with a big smile, and gestures at the table before dashing away. Charlie Chaplain used the gag effectively too, but we expected it from him.