Frankensteins Schrecken

Hammer is good at sets, props, costumes, and casting overall. However, the writing for this one is on the weak side, as was the casting of Prowse as Frankenstein's monster and the makeup for the monster.

Frankenstein is played as a smart-alecky sociopath, which I didn't so much have a problem with. The people are him are rather stupid, which works out well for him but I found it a bit boring and perhaps it should have been played a little more for comedy than it already was. Prowse's monster is one of the least interesting monsters in any Frankenstein movie. He's a killer from the start, and then Frankenstein's attack dog essentially. He's also not merely large, but exceptionally fit, which just doesn't seem right.

Kate O'Mara shows off as much cleavage as is possible without showing more, suggesting Frankenstein perhaps invented tape. It didn't strike me as a particularly bloody film, so some of the other comments make me wonder if I didn't happen upon an edited version. I watched the Republic Pictures videotape released 1994.

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.

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.

Being a huge fan of Hammer's brilliant Frankenstein cycle starring the immortal Peter Cushing, I delayed the viewing of "The Horror of Frankenstein" (1970) several times, convinced that a Hammer Frankenstein without Cushing could only be disappointing. Having finally seen it a few nights ago, I must say that, while the film is nowhere near as great as the Cushing Frankensteins, I actually liked it quite a bit. My main concern before seeing this film was that nobody but Peter Cushing could effectively play Baron Victor Frankenstein in a Hammer film. While he is definitely not en par with Cushing, however, Ralph Bates is actually very convincing in his role of a younger, and very different Baron Frankenstein here. Actually, I must say that Bates' performance as a very cynical and cold-hearted Frankenstein is one of the greatest aspects of this film. I did not like how Frankenstein became a pure villain in this one, but that can hardly be blamed on Bates. Peter Cushing's Frankenstein character was obsessed and unscrupulous, but he was also likable and did what he did convinced of doing what was best for mankind (though he became quite villainous in "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" of 1969). The young, arrogant and entirely cold-blooded Frankenstein in this film shares none of these positive character traits, which is a bit of a shame. That being said, Bates gives the character a glorious touch of sarcasm, which made the film enjoyable. In the beginning, the film annoys with pseudo-funny episodes in Frankenstein's youth, but it gets a lot better after a while when he has reached adulthood. Frankenstein is a womanizing cynic who has no scruples whatsoever in order to reach his goals. Two incredibly beautiful women, his maid Alys (Kate O'Mara) and his former schoolmate Elisabeth (Veronica Carlson) fall for him, yet his only true dedication is the creation of artificial life.

"The Horror of Frankenstein" was directed by Jimmy Sangster, who is mainly famous as the masterly screenwriter of many Hammer classics, including such milestones as "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957), "Dracula" (1958) and "The Brides of Dracula" (1960). Sangster deserves a lot of praise for his magnificent writing work. His work as a director is less memorable, it includes this film, the equally mediocre "Lust for a Vampire" (1971) as well as "Fear in the Night" (1972), which I haven't yet seen. Unlike other Hammer the Frankensteins, which all had a original and innovative storyline, this one merely repeats the story of Frankenstein's first creation, which had already been told (in an incomparably superior manner) in "The Curse of Frankenstein" (1957). The monster in this one is quite a letdown, and I was surprised to see David Prowse, who would later become world-famous as Darth Vader, perform so poorly in the role. I couldn't say whether it was the fault of Prowse or director Jimmy Sangster, but, the monster looks real silly here and seems like an angry thug rather than a real monster. Prowse would also play a monster of Frankenstein's creation in "Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell" (1974), the last film by legendary director Terence Fisher, starring Peter Cushing as the Baron. The makeup was way better in that film, one of Hammer's best, and so was Prowse's performance. "The Horror of Frankenstein" has some atmosphere, Frankenstein's castle laboratory is a terrific setting, and it also has its moments otherwise, but it certainly isn't too memorable. Overall it wasn't nearly as disappointing as I feared, and therefore a positive surprise. "The Horror of Frankenstein" is recommendable to my fellow Hammer fans, but only AFTER seeing all of the marvelous Frankenstein films with Peter Cushing.

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.