Diagonaldi Very well executed

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Wizard-8 Out of all the "Frankenstein" movies actor Peter Cushing made for Hammer Studios, "The Evil of Frankenstein" is considered by many critics to be the weakest of the series. That doesn't mean it's automatically a BAD movie. If you've liked the other in the series, and have a taste for Cushing and Hammer, you'll probably get some reasonable enjoyment out of the movie as I did. All the same, I did think the movie could have been a lot better. The main problem with the movie is the script, specifically when it comes to various actions that the characters make. There are a lot of stupid decisions and actions. For example, when the authorities in the town find out that Dr. Frankenstein has returned, they don't think of looking for him in his long abandoned castle for a very long time. Even Dr. Frankenstein himself seems significantly stupider than in other entries of this series, like when he is trying to stay undercover but confronts (twice) someone in the town who stole his property.But as I said in my summary line, there is still some fun here. Cushing is entertaining as usual, and as stupid as the movie may get at times, I admit I was never bored. If you are willing to accept a good many groaner character actions, the movie does entertain - just not as much as it could have, though.

simeon_flake A lot of mixed reviews for this one--I'm not sure if it's because this is the one that seems to copy the old Universal Frankensteins more than any other film in the Hammer series. Reprotedly, Universal also gave Hammer permission to use the old monster makeup--explaining Kiwi Kingston's look.Nevertheless, I enjoyed it--hell, I would say it's the best of the series that I've seen so far. Just an educated guess on my part as far as the storyline--but, still not having seen "The Revenge of Frankenstein,"--I'm guessing the story for "Evil" is totally new and thus probably free of any nagging continuity as far as how the Baron is back again. But--as I've said elsewhere--sometimes the simplest explanation is that these movies were popular and the public wanted more. Just see the followup, "Frankenstein Created Woman."10 stars...

Rainey Dawn This film like but not as well as parts 1, 2, and 5 of the Cushing Frankenstein series. It is a good film I just liked it a little less - it's the story of this film I liked a little less than the others. This film is a continuation of the story of Dr. Frankenstein, it pick up were part 2 left off.Everyone was good in this film -- but it was Peter Cushing that really carried this one all the way through more so than anything thing else.I definitely recommend this film to others that have enjoyed other Hammer Horror films and/or Peter Cushing's movies. It's worth it.7.5/10

GusF The film takes place in a separate continuity from the first two films in the series, given that it depicts the creation of Frankenstein's first monster in an entirely different way than in "The Curse of Frankenstein". Peter Cushing delivers a great performance as per usual but Baron Frankenstein is a far less compelling and far more upright character in this film. He's characterised as a fairly decent man, albeit a misguided extremist. While the Frankenstein in the first film allowed Justine to be killed by the Creature without a second thought, this Frankenstein appears to be disgusted when he learns that Zoltan has had this version of the Creature kill the Burgomaster. Consequently, the title The Evil of Frankenstein seems like a complete misnomer. A review online said that a more apt title would have "The Contributory Negligence of Frankenstein" and it's hard to disagree with that! The villain of the piece is really George Woodthorpe as Zoltan. He and Cushing are the only actors who stood out for me, I'm afraid, but the others were all adequate to good.For legal reasons, Hammer was precluded from emulating the Universal Frankenstein's Monster design in the first two films but a distribution deal with Universal allowed them to do so in this film. However, I wish that it hadn't as, in spite of the fact that this film was made 33 years after the first Boris Karloff film, the make-up was for worse. Casting Kiwi Kingston, a wrestler as opposed to an actor, in the role was a mistake. His "performance" can't really compare with Christopher Lee's in the first film, who was similarly silent but used facial expressions to convey a great deal, or Michael Gwynn's more verbose performance in "The Revenge of Frankenstein". There are hints of a relationship between the Creature and the similarly mute beggar girl which could have been explored more fully, which makes it rather disappointing that it wasn't.