Universal Terrors, 1951-1955: Eight Classic Horror and Science Fiction Films

I’m glad he’s here – doing what he does – ‘cause really there is no one else like him. That’s Tom Weaver I’m talking about.As a kid, my father bought (for me as well as himself) every book William K. Everson ever wrote, but I lamented the fact that only two of his tomes were devoted to the classic horror film. He gave us readers so much while the monster mags of the day gave us so little (except great pictures). Tom Weaver writes and writes and writes – and has been doing so for a lot of years – and everything he writes is dedicated to the horror film. The classic horror film, that is; those we “old as the darn hills” monster kids (monster old-timers?) are so enamored with. Weaver doesn’t track down lost films as Mr. Everson had – he tracks down the lost people behind and in front of the scenes of virtually every film that could ever even come close to falling within this category. He's mostly in to"how it was done" and "who did it" than anything else.In that regard, Mr. Weaver has done more for classic monster movie historical research than anyone else before him or, because so many of those individuals who were there are sadly passing to that great movie studio in the sky, will ever be able to do again. There ain’t NOBODY he hasn’t talked to. His interviews and studies of individual films are all characterized by a depth and dedication that I can only begin to imagine. What he doesn’t already know he finds out. Then he interviews the right people and finds out even more. (Geez – I guess I kind of hate him too. We’re roughly the same age – why didn’t I think of this. Well probably because I would have burnt out after my hours-long chat with William Alland and, all right I admit it, I’m neither the writer nor the researcher Weaver is.)And his research, as exhaustive, thorough and as accurate as it can possibly be, informs his book Universal Terrors, 1951 through 1955, more so than any other single factor. In other words, if another author had tried to write this book, he would have had to pick Weaver’s brain anyway, since Weaver not only personally spoke with everyone he possibly could have who ever came anywhere near these films, he’s also dug relentlessly into the USC Cinematic Arts Library and presumably opened every “Strange Door” behind which Universal Studios ever stored something useful. Good gosh – how does he get all this detail?There is so much detail here, in fact, I sometimes wonder if I really am the uber fan I claim to me. Did you know for example that on the ninth day of shooting Universal’s “The Strange Door” (for heaven’s sake don’t refer to it as simply “Strange Door”) that the company shot the scene where the character of De Maletroit exchanges dialogue with characters Corbeau and Rinville before catching the character of Voltan spying on them from behind a panel? I thought not. Do you care? Well, if you’re like me, only sort of. It’s cool he knows this stuff but – gosh, its only “The Strange Door” we’re talking about, not “Bride of Frankenstein”.So instead of several pages on each film, allowing for perhaps dozens of films, this is a “laser-focus on the studio’s straight-up chillers and monster movies” as he says in the books intro. Therefore, each of the chapters on the eight films covered is generally structured this way:1., Full credit information (this as with everything else Weaver does isn’t just a copy from the IMDB. Heck no. He’s somehow seen the original Universal records and dives deeper than any other source out there.)2. Production history, (We are talking everything from who was in charge and who came up with the idea to what the mood of the industry was and where the influences came from.)3. Film synopsis and, if applicable, how that synopsis differs from the original source material, (excluding a lot of personal asides here as is his want, Weaver provides a pretty straightforward telling, but accentuates bits of business particularly unique from what we’ve already gleaned from our own viewings or what we’ve learned from a life time of monster magazine reading.)4. Cast biographies, (Full of anecdotes he gathered himself from his own conversations with most of the actors, and avoiding the oft-told we’ve heard it all before filler of yet another Karloff life story)5., The Production itself, (Detail ad nauseum, yes, but with color no other writer could bring to it since many of the participants add tons of detail to what the Universal production sheets outline.)6., Marginalia (The ‘fun facts” section with Weaver at his most fun and most readable, and peppered with personal opinions and witty asides)7. The Release (with writing duties taken over by the just as exhaustive Robert J. Kiss – letting you when and where it was released alone, as the top half of a double bill, at the bottom half, with live stage accompaniment, in triple bills, in re-releases, on television, and what the critics said about it)8. The Music, (with film score expert David Schecter taking you on the deepest dive possible to sort out what cuts of what scores were composed by whom, or from what film they were borrowed, etc.) and finally,9. Analysis (each of the eight “analyses” written by a great pal of Weavers Steve Kronenberg whom I know best as a valued collaborator on one of the best monster mags ever produced, Monsters from the Vault.)There are variations on this structure throughout, such as a welcome discussion with 3-D restoration experts Greg Kintz and Bob Furmanek in the “It Came from Outer Space” chapter, but generally, this is how the book sallies forth. Look, maybe the minutia of the music cobbled together for “The Black Castle” really isn’t my thing, at least not for more than about four or five paragraphs, but it might be somebody’s thing so why should I complain.Do I really need to know that “Cult of the Cobra” was paired with other movies such as Roy Rogers’ “Along the Navaho Trail” in the early summer of 1955? Well, no, but maybe somebody does. Its all fine information and, while this stuff seems to me to be much ado about just the mildly interesting, most of what is contained in the book is downright fascinating.I wish Kronenberg in his handling of his Analysis of each film had the freewheeling style of his pal Weaver. He seems unsure much of the time and takes it all painfully seriously, which puts his contributions at odds with the tone of rest of the book. And frankly, he often takes some rather simplistic approaches to the examination of each film For example, both Weaver and Kronenberg have a fair amount of dis-respect for director-legend Jack Arnold (the lies the director was caught in when talking about his career and word of his legendary womanizing have cast a dark and ugly shadow on his incredible accomplishments as a director) but not sure that excuses statements such as this: “Indeed [Kronenberg uses that word A LOT] whatever style “Revenge [of the Creature]” possesses is almost entirely a function of [Cinematographer Scotty] Welbourne’s camera.” Brash and indirectly dismissive claims such as that one have always bugged me, and with Kronenberg you get plenty. Throughout the “Revenge” section, the rest of the analysis virtually ignores the screenwriters’ and Arnold’s contributions to this admittedly incredibly rushed and comparatively inferior production. Look, Welbourne did his job just like everyone else did , and he did the best he could, like he was supposed to. This assumption on Kroneberg’s part of exactly how extensive Welbourne’s contribution was to the production (as if Steve was there to watch on the set while, seeing Welbourne hustle while everyone else sat around) includes assumptions stated as fact such as “Credit Welbourne and [creature actor] Ricou Browning for again evoking our sympathy for this monster as we see him chained and swimming desperately.” Yeah ‘cause I’m sure the script and director Arnold actually wanted us to be hating the Creature at this point. C’mon.Not to beat the point to death, but in Kronenberg’s “Analysis” of “Tarantula” Kronenberg gives supporting actor Leo G. Carroll the lion’s share of the credit for whatever success this Jack Arnold-directed winner may possess. “It is Leo G. Carroll’s Professor Deemer who carries the show” he says before devoting nine paragraphs to this actor and his hum-drum performance, then shifting to this observation: “Other than Carroll, the REAL stars of Tarantula are its technicians, particularly its [guess what] cameraman George Robinson.” Here we go again.Still there is much to savor here. Perhaps the most entertaining part of this one-of-a-kind book is Tom Weaver’s crankiness and snarky humor. At his point in his career, he may have seen this these movies about two or three dozen times too many.He snarks at fans, for example, who find it hilarious when the Tarantula peers in the window at gorgeous, pajama-clad Mara Corday because they have “somehow reached the bizarre conclusion that Tarantula is “lusting” after her.” Well, okay, but I certainly jump to that bizarre conclusion because, well, let’s face it - up to this point, any time a monster peered in the window at an unsuspecting femme the assumption COULD be made there was a degree of lust. And it is funny when the spider does it. Look, the damn spider DOES stop to peer in the window while she’s prepping for bed. Wha…? It’s silly enough the spider is looking in the window, giving the impression this giant arthropod could identify a human being by looking at them. It would be difficult for him to do so – where are his front legs? But Tom says that if the giant spider were looking in at the doctor who caused it all, would we assume Tarantula was lusting after him? Well no – we’d probably assume he was pissed off and wanting to destroy him. I like that i find it a funny scene – and I like that Tom lets us know it bugs him. While those of us in ‘Fan-dumb” have our sophomoric laugh, he growls like the wise old grouch he is. (Even Steve Kroneberg admits this scene is “reminiscent of King Kong peering at Fay Wray through her hotel window,” only he finds the scene actually “frightening”. )And Weaver’s “hey, did you ever stop to think about this” comments - for those of us who have also seen these movies too many times - are a lot of fun. For example, if “them thar Metaluna folks have big brains that make ‘em right smart,” then what are we “to make of the fact that the Mutants have even bigger brains?” Huh? Did ya ever think of that?? Funny stuff and pretty entertaining.What else do you want to know? Buy the damn thing. Savor these Tom Weaver creations. We will never see the likes of someone like him again.

Wonderful look at some classic Universal horror and sci-fi films. A very detailed look at these movies, I would say this book is more for a real fan of 50's movies. The reason is that it goes in to a lot of detail on each film. If you have an interest in these old movies, this book is for you. It covers the complete production schedule with anecdotes of making the movie, short but very interesting biographies of the stars, a highly detailed account of putting together a musical score for each film, and everything you could want to know about the release and critical reaction of the movies. There are also a wealth of photos to help illustrate the text. I found this fascinating and it makes watching and re-watching this films more enjoyable. Tom Weaver has a real love for the history of horror and sci-fi films and it shows in his writing and collaborators for this book. Some of his comments and quotes of how the film was put together, will make you smile.

Among the best memories of Baby Boomers are those associated with monster movies. And nobody did it better than Universal. It's easy to be greedy when reading about these movies. My only complaint is that the book ended too soon. But then, so did the time window on the production of this kind of mythic story telling. The fact that they were done so well is mute testimony to their enduring charm and relevance. Nobody did science gone wrong like Universal.

Would make an excellent gift for 50s horror movie fans. If you just want to read about the Creature from the black lagoon you would be better off with their excellent book on that. But this gives and overview of the 8 movies discussed. There is a separate section on the soundtracks, lots of pics, details on the release and reviews. Entertaining and makes you want to watch the pics again. Also check out scripts from the crypt where a single pic such as bride of the gorilla or dracula's daughter are covered in detail. Good quality paper and repro. Cult of the cobra also is in a dvd package and I think the others are as well. I'm glad I got this though the price is stiff as there are hours of reading.

This is yet another exceptional Tom Weaver title. This long overdue (by decades) sequel to Universal Horrors focuses on a handful of films rather than duplicating the deliriously far reaching and comprehensive format of the former. I was initially disappointed with this until I delved deeply into each film. There was simply no other way to provide such mind boggling detail. Plot synopses, overviews, production histories, music soundtracks, ad campaigns, analyses... its all here for our enjoyment. There is a promise of a sequel covering the years 1956-1960, however, if it takes as long as this one did I'll unfortunately be long dead before it is published.

Owning, or having seen, all these films led me to this purchase. I'm so glad I did! This is an extremely thorough, yet light-hearted and funny analysis of some films that may have gotten short shrift, critically or historically. The minutia is very detailed, but always interesting and entertaining. I'm looking forward to the companion volumes this author. Recommended!

Knockout of a book. Hours of pleasure for film buffs. Tom Weaver is the MAN! More on later UI Sci-Fi / Horror, please.

If you like 1950s low budget horror films, this is the ticket. Very detailed and lots of great photos.