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

There seems to be a strange train of thought that this film shouldn't be include in the Universal FRANKENSTEIN monster franchise. Let me see now , there's a character called Lawrence Talbot and he finds himself caught up in plot involving Count Dracula and the Frankenstein monster. On top of that he's played by Lon Chaney Jnr and Dracula and the monster are both played by actors who had previously played the same characters in the Universal franchise. There might be a lack of internal continuity but that's always been the problem with the franchise . Ah it also stars Bud Abbott and Lou Costello , a comedy double act in a film that's marketed as a comedy. Well there was also an element of black comedy to THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and some of the scenes from the latter films do come across as being deliberately tongue in cheek . I would definitely consider this as being part of the legendary franchise and would also consider it better than most of the films in the series One thing I did notice on its network broadcasts is that it was never included in the BBC horror seasons that were shown on BBC 2 in the 1970s and early 1980s where the broadcasters would - unlike the similar Hammer films - show respect by showing the universal FRANKENSTEIN movies in chronological order, The only times I remember seeing A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN being shown was one Saturday morning in the 1970s on ITV and about ten years later on an early evening slot on the same regional station which indicates broadcasting rights were an issue Typing that last line reminds that networks broadcasting black and white films is something from my nostalgic youth. I certainly do remember Abbott and Costello as a child but they struck me as a rather pale imitation of Laurel and Hardy. I'm probably being disingenuous because here they are authentically amusing. Okay I wasn't exactly rolling around the floor but the smart one liners and put downs did bring a smile to my face. Since there's two aspects , one of comedy and one of horror this tends to bulk up the storyline , especially in comparison with the threadbare narratives of the monster films of the 1940s. On short it's a good way to end the monster franchise for once and for all

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.

This a very good comedy. It is different from must comedy movies. For one thing is funny. People do not just laugh at it because they are told they supposed to laugh. How many comedy are sequels to a very scary horror movie. Yes it is a comedy but it is also a sequel to House of Dracula. This is also a movie scarier then The Shinning. It funny but it is also scary. Dracula and The Frankenstein monster are back. And the wolf man must stop them. He tries to find help. From two very stupid delivery men. House of Dracula is better. House of Frankenstein is also better. But still the movie is a must see. Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man is also better.