YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN
Reviewed by Steve Biodrowski
This spoof was a tremendous blockbuster when it originally opened -- it is Mel Brooks' biggest feature film hit and perhaps the biggest money-maker ever with the word "Frankenstein" in the title (although direct comparisons are difficult because of inflation in ticket prices). Unfortunately, it has not stood the test of time so well; in fact, it has dated more rapidly than the films it targets.
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN is a simultaneous parody of and tribute to Universal's classic Frankenstein films. Filmed in black-and-white, with the familiar Kenneth Strickfaden mad scientist laboratory equipment (the same stuff seen in the original 1931 FRANKENSTEIN), it captures the look and feel of the old movies while skewering them with an endless arsenal of joke. The humor is fairly effective long as it keeps the bulls-eye focused on its source material, but Mel Brooks can't resist wandering away from the target, opting for a scattergun approach that that is as much hit and miss. For instance, the painfully unfunny tie-and-tails song-and-dance duet between Frankenstein and his creation is apparently supposed to be funny because it's so off-the-wall, but it just stands out like a sore thumb, making you wonder what exactly it's doing in the movie.
At the time of its release, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was almost a reactionary movie. Color horror films, soaked in blood, had been in vogue since 1957 (thanks to Hammer Films' CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN), and the 1973 FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (a.k.a. ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN) had taken sex and violence to new levels -- in 3D, no less. In this context, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN seemed like more than just a comedy; by adopting the style and trappings of classic Gothic horror, Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder seemed to be making a statement in favor of the older films even as they were poking fun at them.
Unfortunately, YOUNG FRAKENSTEIN ultimately succumbs to its own self-congratulatory zeal. Brooks and Wilder may love the old Universal horror films, but they don't necessarily have the talent to handle their subject matter seriously, so instead they take the easy path of parody, which conveniently masks any cinematic shortcomings (i.e., if it looks lame, that's only because it was meant to be funny). Also, although Wilder and Brooks seem to have enjoyed collaborating with each other, their approach is often like oil and water -- it just doesn't mix. Wilder wants to do the sad clown thing -- pathos and humor -- and Brooks wants to do jokes about bathrooms, large breasts, and enormous genitals. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it doesn't really serve much purpose in a parody of FRANKENSTEIN.)
Ultimately, the film seems somewhat clueless regarding the fact that the two Frankenstein films directed by James Whale (FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN) featured heavy doses of Whale's own brand of sly humor, which is considerably more subtle and sophisticated than many of the crude jokes on view here.
RELATED ARTICLES: Frankenstein (1931) - Review
