Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Leofwine_draca Hammer unwisely decided to turn to comedy for another Frankenstein film, this time the penultimate in the series. The Gothic chills and spills we are used to seeing are thrown aside to make way for a few (and towards the end, very few) laughs. Essentially a remake of Hammer's classic THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, Hammer made the grave mistake of casting a newcomer in the role of Frankenstein, Ralph Bates, who had starred in the previous year's TASTE THE BLOOD OF Dracula.While Bates is not particularly bad in the role, he is no Peter Cushing, and the film sadly misses Cushing's authoritative presence. Bates, however, is something of a laugh as the coldly detached scientist who views the world through lowered eyelids and never gets emotional about anything. Veronica Carlson (DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE) is on hand as one of the love interests and looks fetching in a night-gown, but the main female presence in the film is Kate O'Mara, who has a riot as the scheming Alys. Dennis Price has fun in a minor, Burke and Hare-type role. Dave Prowse (Darth Vader) is an ugly, brutish monster who offers no sympathy or pathos in the role. He would return again as the monster in FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL, and also as a strongman in VAMPIRE CIRCUS.There are a few deaths to retain interest in the film, but they're typically of the non-graphic sort, apart from a neck breaking near the end. On the plus side, the costumes have never been better, and the sets are particularly striking, but the visual appeal is let down by a grainy, cheap feel to the film which occurs mainly due to the low budget. There are a few of the usual syringes, bloody brains, and severed limbs to keep things moving along, but in the end THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN is a letdown, a film not helped by the lame climax. Not up to Hammer's usual standards.

Sean Jump Horror of Frankenstein was an attempt by Hammer films to reboot their long-running Frankenstein franchise, sans the star of the previous popular films, Peter Cushing. Despite the gaping hole left in the film by Cushing's absence, Hammer put together what was nonetheless a formidable cast and crew that should have managed to make a very fine picture. But at some point the decision was apparently made to reinvent the story as a comedy or satire on the whole Frankenstein theme, with virtually disastrous results. Director Jimmy Sangster was a solid choice to helm the film, but while everything is competently filmed the ridiculous tone ruins what is otherwise a rich and colorful Gothic atmosphere. As the title character, Ralph Bates may not be Peter Cushing but he does convey the sort of ruthless, amoral intelligence that the part demands, and it's likely that Mr. Bates could have played a more serious conception of the character quite well. Naturally, this being a Hammer production, the film is graced by a pair of especially lovely actresses in the well-endowed persons of Kate O'Mara and Veronica Carlson, and both of them do a fine job (and, notably, are allowed to play their roles rather seriously). O'Mara brings just the right amount of seductive charm and cold self-interest to the part of Frankenstein's housemaid and lover, while Carlson's innocent Elizabeth is absolutely irresistible (to any man but the twisted Frankenstein, at least). Without these two gifted actresses, the picture would be even more lackluster than it is. It should also be noted that the monster, played by David Prowse (yes, Darth Vader himself) is quite powerful and intimidating, with a bigger mean streak than Hammer often portrayed Frankenstein's creatures with. Prowse's monster is a nearly unstoppable killing machine, barely kept in check by Frankenstein's unholy influence, and provides a much-needed kick to the frequently silly proceedings. If the director had made a straight horror film, Prowse's version of the monster would probably be remembered as a truly frightening one. As it is, the tongue-in-cheek approach undercuts Prowse's effective performance. It's hard to imagine why the road to high camp was taken as opposed to Hammer's tried-and-true formula of Gothic chillers, unless someone was overcome by a burning desire to break out of the mould and do something different for a change. Horror of Frankenstein is different, though in a very unfortunate manner. All the pieces were in place to craft a fine remake of 1957's Curse of Frankenstein, but the satirical approach is a failure all-around. It's never even really funny, and the climax, as such, is a frustrating bomb of epic proportions. On the one hand, everyone involved deserves a lot of credit for managing to avoid making a truly awful movie despite the badly conceived humor, especially the beautiful Carlson and O'Mara and the imposing Prowse. But on the other, it's a shame that such a great opportunity was wasted. Hammer completists and fans of the cast may not regret checking this one out, but everyone else is better off sticking with Hammer's earlier, and more serious, Frankenstein efforts.

Cheese Hoven This film seems more stitched together than the monster's body. A long series of clichés- all past their sell-by date by 1970- are brought together to make this lacklustre addition to the Frankenstein franchise. An old castle, dummkopf locals, good girl/bad girl... these are all things we have seen before. Many times. Ralph Bates strikes a new note, however, as a truly loathsome Frankenstein, which he plays perfectly. This is quite a change from the honestly enquiring scientist who gets caught up meddling in things beyond his power. Bates is completely unscrupulous from the start; he has already decided on a course of evil before the monster is even conceived. In this course he is aided by his social position and his indulgence by everyone he meets, particularly the ladies (well they do like a bastard don't they?). The first two thirds of the film, although rather drawn out, is actually the best portion in hindsight. As a study in how a loathsome egomaniac being indulged can get steadily worse, it is quite good. And a good turn by Dennis Price as a self serving grave robber who lets his wife doing all the dirty work, is slyly humorous. Where the film really disappoints is with the appearance of the monster. Here the clichés really kick in. Some highly predictable sequences lead to its strange unsatisfying end.

futes2-1 I hadn't watched this one for years. So despondent was I with my own vague memories and subsequent negative reviews that I more or less consigned the film to the scrap heap. However, I caught part of it on ITV4 a few weeks ago and thought 'I wouldn't mind watching that'. Remembering that I had the DVD as part of a box set I settled down recently and prepared myself for what many people consider to be not only the worst of the Hammer Frankensteins, but one of their worst films generally and found my opinions, whilst not totally blown out of the water, were to change considerably. Inevitably the lack of Terence Fisher and Peter Cushing takes its toll; one only need compare 'The Evil of Frankenstein' (1964) directed by Freddie Francis to the others in Hammer's canon to realise just how much Fisher brought to the Frankenstein movie sub genre, and it was once said of Peter Cushing that he could have been the next Olivier. Despite these apparent shortcomings, the director, Jimmy Sangster, does manage to adhere here and there to accepted Hammeresque aspects and does include a couple of nice scenes; there's an almost fairy tale quality to the scene of the monster lumbering towards the woodsman's cottage and, although the majority of direction is pedestrian at best, there is the occasional flourish that suggests Sangster at least had the ability to do better. Ralph Bates does a good job in his role as the young Baron Frankenstein; the fact that so many people have described how pompous, spoilt, cold and unpleasant he is providing proof of the quality of his performance and the juxtaposition between his utter contempt for human life, a contempt that leads him to murder several people, including his father thereby killing off the old values for good, and his goal of creating life is quite well considered. Dave Prowse, who played the strongman in 'Vampire Circus' (1970) and a far more sympathetic monster in 'Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell' (1973) has little to do other than lumber around killing or threatening people but there is no denying that his is a physically intimidating creature that you really wouldn't want to come across while walking through the woods. Despite the lack of 'monster' makeup I actually found the design interesting and felt it suited this particular variation on the Frankenstein myth, perceiving the monster as a deeply psychotic extension of the Baron's already disturbed personality. Kate O'Mara is very convincing as the conniving Alys. Physically she reminds me of Nell Quick in James Herbert's excellent novel 'Once' and Veronica Carlson does her best with a fairly weakly written role. The next acting honours must go to Denis Price as the grave robber and Joan Rice as his downtrodden wife. I was, I suppose, surprised at how tame this movie was. Given the strength and gore quotient in the same year's 'Scars of Dracula', it would have seemed obvious to extend the gore factor in this one; there is very little horror in 'The Horror of Frankenstein' beyond the horror of what humans are capable enough if they are driven in the way Frankenstein appears to be here. All in all though, 'The Horror of Frankenstein' is a fairly intriguing relic; a reminder of a time before cinema audiences were so completely desensitised that they need shock after shock to sustain their interest and an unusual, if watered down, echo of Hammer's prior greatness.