Frankensteins Schrecken

This was top Hammer screenwriter Jimmy Sangster's first directorial effort for the company (incidentally, I watched the other two - LUST FOR A VAMPIRE [1971] and FEAR IN THE NIGHT [1972] - in quick succession). I hadn't picked this up on DVD earlier because of its much-maligned reputation: however, I was extremely surprised to find it quite effective!

Given that it's basically a remake of THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Sangster took a radically different approach - treating the events as black comedy; the resulting film is very funny indeed at times (though it almost feels like "Carry On Frankenstein": witness the disembodied hand coming to life to give the two-finger gesture and Ralph Bates' comments at Kate O'Mara's cleavage!). The film features an abrupt, doubly ironic ending - while, as opposed to STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING (1972), there's plenty of gore here but no nudity. Still, despite being made on the cheap, it all looks pretty decent (a virtue common to most Hammer product, in fact).

Bates (who showed real promise but, essentially, came to Hammer too late) and Dennis Price (as a cheerful body snatcher who likes to have his pregnant wife do the dirty work for him!) are very good; from the rest of the cast - which includes Jon Finch as a dogged police lieutenant who happens to be a former colleague of Frankenstein's - O'Mara as Bates' sexy but conniving housekeeper/lover comes off best (though Veronica Carlson, who's somewhat underused here, also proves undeniable eye-candy).

There are faults, however: Bates's scientist is, ultimately, too glum in comparison to Cushing's animated characterization; the monster itself is an unfortunate creation (pun intended) - Dave Prowse's physique is certainly ideal for the role (in fact, he returned for FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL [1974] and proved far more successful at it) but, as depicted here, it comes across as a mere killing machine, showing no emotion or curiosity at its surroundings (such as when the monster kills the O'Mara character or when it ventures outside into the countryside).

Essentially, then, the film emerges as an interesting but not entirely successful reinvention of the Frankenstein saga and, actually, a curious attempt on Hammer's part at this particular stage - given that it followed closely on the heels of one of their finest (and bleakest) efforts! That said, having now watched Hammer's entire Frankenstein series, I can safely say that it's superior overall to their Dracula films.

The extras include a 14-minute career overview by Hammer starlet/beauty Carlson - she feels lucky and privileged to have worked three times for the studio and in the company of such talented people as Freddie Francis, Christopher Lee, Terence Fisher, Peter Cushing, Jimmy Sangster and Ralph Bates. Sangster describes in the Audio Commentary how, when he started as a screenwriter, he was careful not to overstep the limitations set by the budget - which he learned from having been a Production Manager for Hammer for the previous several years; as a director, then, he often consulted with his editor to determine whether the latter got all the necessary coverage for any particular scene. He also discusses the rest of his career, going into some detail on the making of such films as TASTE OF FEAR (1961) and THE ANNIVERSARY (1968), and seems baffled - but, at the same time, amused - by the critical about-turn Hammer's output has enjoyed in recent years. With respect to THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN itself, he admits that he was initially averse to the idea of Ralph Bates as Baron Frankenstein - but, eventually, the two became very good friends and, in fact, Bates appeared in all three films Sangster directed! By the way, Travis Crawford's interesting liner notes compare the film's self-mocking attitude to the even more radical 'revisionist' approach to the Mary Shelley tale seen in FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (1973).

The Horror of Frankenstein is the sixth and second to last entry in their Frankenstein cycle. Many, and I mean many, revile this film as nothing to do with the other films in content, style, and acting. It is the only film that does not star Peter Cushing as the evil Baron Frankenstein. That in itself is a huge obstacle to get past. I love Cushing in everything he does. He personifies the character of the Baron with his cold, heartless, calculating mind. Cushing with Terence Fisher, the director in most of those previous Frankenstein films, always made the Baron the focal point of the film rather than the monster. This is a huge departure from the Universal cycle. Cushing's creation stayed very much in character for all of the films until the last one Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. In that film Cushing moves from that cold, heartless baron with some ethics to a womanizing, truly evil and terrifying man bent of personal pleasure as much as creating life. That film is not one of my favorites in the Hammer cycle; however, The Horror of Frankenstein takes that Victor Frankenstein and runs amuck with it in this version written and directed by the very, very talented Jimmy Sangster. Ralph Bates is that very same Baron only younger, and yes this is really just a reworking of The Curse of Frankenstein with some additional violence, a younger cast, some more graphic effects, and plenty and plenty of glorious cleavage. Bates is rather good in this role as a weaselly Baron who cares only about himself and how individuals can please him, and when they no longer can they no longer have value in his eyes except for whatever value he can place on pieces of their anatomy. Sangster defines his characters fairly well, and I enjoyed the story and the acting and the film much, much more than I had thought upon hearing so much negativity for the film. Is it as good as The Curse of Frankenstein? No way. The Revenge of Frankenstein? Nope. Any of the others - probably not though I found it more entertaining if not as good as Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed AND Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell. Sangster's direction is very typically Hammeresque and the acting follows suit with some great character performances by Bernard Archard as the brain-giver and Dennis Price chewing up scenery as the resurectionist. His lines are worth seeing almost by themselves. And how about Veronica Carlson and Kate O'Mara? I cannot think of four - I mean 2 - things that are more captivating in the film. The Horror of Frankenstin is not groundbreaking at all, and it does marshal in the beginning of the new Hammer direction of sex and bloodier violence soon to hit the screens with the likes of The Vampire Lovers and what followed. but it is not over-the-top at this point and is much better than some would have you believe. The apparatus for acid used throughout the film was very intriguing and a wonderful set piece.

To clarify, it's really no treasure, but, neither do I agree with the consensus. As of this writing, other comments are overwhelmingly negative. But I don't think that this flick is all that bad. Sure - it's a temptation to compare it to other Hammer films and Frankenstein movies in general. But, because Peter Cushing and Boris Karloff aren't in it, THAT shouldn't be held against Horror of Frankenstein. (They weren't in Citizen Kane, either, but THAT'S a pretty good pic.) I'm guilty of too much comparing, myself, but, for some reason, I did not do it here. Maybe that's why I rated it "respectable". I'm satisfied with most aspects of this production, although, admittedly, the outset is a bit dialogue-heavy and action-starved. It takes a long, mundane time, but, through it all, we meet (among others), sociopathic med student, Victor Frankenstein; his straight-as-an-arrow classmate, Wilhelm; destitute-destined neighbor, Elizabeth; the buxom housekeeper (but lousy cook), Alys; the one-step-behind police lieutenant, Henry Becker; the good-at-what-he-does body and parts supplier and his widow; and, of course, the towering, impetuous monster. It has an easy-to-follow story, with enough Hammer cleavage... urrr, diversions... to make it interesting. This attempt is okay, in my book.

I'd heard nothing but bad things about 'Horror Of Frankenstein', but after watching it I was surprised at how entertaining it was (for the most part). The first two thirds are pretty damn good in my opinion. It's basically a remake of the first Hammer Frankenstein movie but with added humour, which in places reminded me of Stuart Gordon's 80s classic 'Re-Animator'. Ralph Bates, who was in a few Hammer movies during this period (like 'Lust For A Vampire', the disappointing sequel to 'The Vampire Lovers'), plays an intense young Frankenstein who isn't that far removed from Jeffrey Combs' Herbert West. Bates gives a strong performance and the supporting cast includes lovelies Kate O'Mara (the French governess in 'The Vampire Lovers') and Veronica Carlson, which certainly helps a lot, as well as Jon Finch ('Frenzy') and a great comic turn from Dennis Price ('Theatre Of Blood', 'Vampyros Lesbos') as an eccentric grave robber. So far so good, but unfortunately when we finally see Frankenstein's monster (played by David "Darth Vader" Prowse) it's very anticlimactic. Prowse's monster is the worst I've ever seen in any Frankenstein movie and things fall apart very quickly from then on. Oh well. Anyway, while this movie ultimately disappoints I think Bates and Price make it worth watching all the same, and O'Mara is extremely sexy as a saucy servant girl. But it must be said that 'The Horror Of Frankenstein' ties with 'Lust For A Vampire' and 'Dracula A.D. 1972' as the weakest Hammer movie I've seen to date.

The Horror of Frankenstein shouldn't be considered as an official part of Hammer Horror's excellent Frankenstein series as it doesn't star the series' stand out actor - Peter Cushing and by all accounts is really just a re-run of the classic Mary Shelly, which Hammer already did with The Curse of Frankenstein some thirteen years earlier. This fact alone ensures that the film is never going to be as great as the other films in the series as, simply put, we've seen it all before. What made Hammer's Frankenstein sequels so brilliant was the way that they played around with the base story and created something fresh and exciting; whereas here it's just the base 'Frankenstein creates a monster' story. This was great in 'Curse' as we had an amazing Peter Cushing performance to delight over - but here we only have Ralph Bates to keep us entertained. Bates definitely is one of Hammer's better smaller stars, and he offers a worthy interpretation of the character for sure - but Peter Cushing is a hard man to follow, and Bates' just hasn't got what it takes.

One thing Bates does try his hand at, though, is the side of Frankenstein that Cushing did best - the egocentric confidence! Seeing Bates take the Mickey out of a number of people is always entertaining and his lines are surprisingly well written. Ironically, it's when the monster is introduced that the film really trips over as in the first two thirds, we've always got Bates' humour to revel in, but once the monster is introduced that all fades. Adding to the woe is the fact that the monster is really terrible, and doesn't even nearly compare to any of the monsters seen in the 'real' Hammer Frankenstein movies. It's surprising how much influence the Hammer Frankenstein movies have given Stuart Gordon's brilliant Re-Animator, and it's influence is evident in some parts of this film. While this movie isn't Hammer's best by a long shot, it's still definitely worth a shot as it features many elements that Hammer are famous for and, despite the fact that it was made in the 1970's, Hammer's eccentric camp style is still omnipresent. Not great...but certainly not all bad.