User reviews

If you try to compare this remake to the original, it will of course fall short as most recreated films do, but this feature is still very good for a late night scare. The biggest difference between this and the original is Victor Von Frankenstein is practically more frightening than the monster himself. He is a cold blooded, emotionless character, who uses Frankenstein as his personal executioner. He is also intelligent and careful to tie up loose ends. Great Halloween time film. No need to worry about watching it alone, but a fine flick with some exceptional acting to boot.

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.

... but I was mostly laughing at the film instead of with it.

As the film opens, Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) is in medical school in 19th century Austria. After he makes a fool out of a professor and class ends, a classmate asks him "What's hypochondria?" A female classmate volunteers to help him in anatomy; a male's offer is declined. After Victor's father (George Belbin) says he'll die before he wastes money to send Victor to Vienna to study, Victor arranges for his death. After Victor becomes Baron Frankenstein, he goes off to Vienna to study. The film follows a well-worn, mostly predictable path from here.

The picture has elements that had to be intentional parody. There's a team of husband-wife grave-robbers (Dennis Price and Joan Rice) who do battle while they dig into graves, and complain they aren't getting paid enough. Alys (Kate O'Mara), who is maid and mistress for the father and later his son, is made to be a dreadful cook who all the characters complain about in the course of the movie.

But then there are things like characters who live in the castle forgetting where Frankenstein's laboratory is (upstairs); the maid refers to it being upstairs and downstairs. The creditors of a victim's father refers to her owing "about $12,000 bucks" . The victims are all predictable; just listen to their lines. For those in the audience who needed more help, the women with the lowest cut dresses in the thinnest material are sure to die. Director Jimmy Sangster makes sure there are plentiful bosom shots.

The Monster's (David Prowse) appearance is unique. He's blond, is wearing only what looks like a iron dog collar around his neck and white underwear, has stitches all over and looks like he's spent all his time working out at the local gym. Was he Mel Brooks' inspiration for the Monster in 1974's "Young Frankenstein" and the inspiration for the Monster in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1976)?? Don't feel too bad for Prowse. In 1977 he is the physical presence of Darth Vader in Star Wars even if James Earl Jones is his voice.

Bates, O'Mara, and Carlson deliver professional performances, although Veronica Carlson seems to be fighting a case of the giggles. Price and Rice are the intentional delights of the film as the bickering grave-robbers.

The film still has the expected Hammer elements, and looks good. This should be a terrible film, but it's more entertaining than it has any right to be. I laughed more at this than at some so-called comedies.

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.

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).

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.

If nothing else, this movie is conclusive evidence of why Jimmy Sangster did not have a busy career as a director. Easily the worst Hammer Frankenstein (and one of Hammer's overall worst), HORROR is dull, plodding and seemingly endless. Ralph Bates, acceptable in some other Hammer films, plays Victor Frankenstein in precisely the same snide, supercilious tone throughout; nothing gets him excited, not sex with a gorgeous woman, not murdering his best friend, not even (accidentally) bringing his Monster to life. Peter Cushing was so very much better in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (of which HORROR is basically a remake) that there simply is no comparison at all.

And Sangster matches him beat for beat; scenes have no pacing, they're just there, fulfilling their plot function (most of the time -- there's no payoff to Victor getting the dean's daughter pregnant), and then going slowly on to the next sequence; each scene is laden with boring talk. It seems to take almost the entire movie to bring the Monster to life, and then he doesn't do anything very interesting -- plus he's one of the least interesting-LOOKING Frankenstein Monsters in movie history.

There's some humor in the film (and some failed attempts at it), the best joke being Victor's body-part number appearing (in his imagination) on the forehead of the next "donor." But there's not enough humor to make this a comedy; there isn't even any attitude -- of any sort -- toward the material that would indicate a satire. It's a flat, lifeless movie with great color and good sets. But even with those good sets, the film seems very, very cheap. Hammer was definitely in a decline at this time.

THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

Jimmy Sangster's feeble hybrid is a misguided attempt to fulfil two ambitions: First to remake THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - the film which launched Hammer Studios to worldwide fame - with half the budget and twice the irony; and second, to promote Ralph Bates as their new 'youth-oriented' star. The film fails on both counts because of the cheapjack production values and the general air of mockery, and because Bates plays the Baron as an arrogant, dissolute youth with few redeeming features, completely lacking the ice-cold authority of Peter Cushing in his prime. Hammer could never appeal to the 'youth' market without falling flat on its face, and this one is no exception. Here, the Baron works his way through a threadbare cast-list, seeking spare parts to build a monster that ends up looking like a pro-wrestler! Naturally, the brain is damaged before he manages to sew it into the creature's cranium, providing an excuse for some lacklustre mayhem once the monster is up and running.

There are minor virtues: Dennis Price enjoys himself as a graverobber who goes about his business with an unseemly glee, and the wonderful Kate O'Mara is upstaged by her own cleavage, but horror fans won't be amused by the film's rambling plot and half-hearted attempts at humor. Thankfully, the series bowed out in style three years later when Peter Cushing re-teamed with director Terence Fisher for the dignified swan song FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (1973).

By the 1970s, Hammer was struggling to find an audience still willing to cough up to see lavish Gothic productions; as a result, their output became increasingly targeted at the more profitable youth market. Having been exposed to more explicit teen horror films from the US, this particular demographic demanded that the studio adapt its format to suit. Graphic gore and nudity now had precedence over fog-shrouded graveyards and creepy castles.

In accordance with this new approach, The Horror of Frankenstein presents its viewers with a decidedly different take on Mary Shelley's classic: it's a sexier, nastier, gorier, and generally far more exploitative effort than any previous film in the series, and one which benefits greatly from a deliciously twisted script loaded with gallows humour.

This shake-up also called for a new leading man: out went Peter Cushing's well respected, but severely obsessive scientist, and in came Ralph Bates' more loathsome incarnation of Victor Frankenstein—a younger, mean-spirited, murderous, and cold-blooded individual. Bate's performance is practically perfect, convincingly portraying the utter contempt that his character feels for all mankind—even his closest friends and admirers.

Also rather memorable, albeit for completely different reasons, are the obligatory hammer babes: Kate O'Mara as Alys, the slutty housemaid who sees to the Baron's every needs (if you know what I mean), and Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth Heiss, the prettiest girl in the village and Victor's secret admirer. Both girls are absolutely stunning and possess quite impressive 'talents' (which, particularly in O'Mara's case, regularly threaten to spill completely out over the top of their costumes!).

Many Hammer aficionados seem to have a problem with The Horror of Frankenstein, unable to appreciate its wicked sense of humour. I however, think that it is an extremely fun flick, and a refreshing change to the usual Hammer style. The only gripe I do have with the film is that the monster itself (played by Dave 'Darth Vader' Prowse) is rather weak in its conception: with a little more time and effort spent on the creature make-up FX (the stitching looks like it was drawn on with marker pens), he wouldn't have been quite so laughable.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

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.

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.

The Horror of Frankenstein definitely could have been much better and is rather disappointing compared to how good most Hammer horrors are and the standard of most of the previous Frankenstein entries. But to me it was not as bad as was led to believe.

The Horror of Frankenstein does have some things going for it. It's very atmospherically photographed and has equally sumptuous costume and set design and nice shadowy lighting. Malcolm Williamson's haunting score compliments the film's mood most effectively and there are some good performances here. Ralph Bates is particularly notable, okay he's nowhere near as good as Peter Cushing in the role(who I consider the definitive Frankenstein)- but that's a big ask- and he overplays just a little in places but it was interesting to see a Frankenstein with no redeeming qualities; Bates does a great job commanding the screen and attacks the role with gusto. Kate O'Mara and Bernard Archard are equally great and Veronica Carlson is truly entrancing in a very eye-candy-like role but Carlson does give more than that despite not been given as much as she ought to have done. Dennis Price is a lot of cheery fun as a grave robber.

The Horror of Frankenstein has a lot of problems though, the two big problems for me being the script and the Monster. The film is very heavy on dialogue but also lacking in action, there are a couple of nice scenes here and there but a lot of the film has some pedestrian storytelling that lacked suspense and freshness. It's not a bad thing if a film takes time to set things up, but The Horror of Frankenstein spends too long a time doing so. Things could have been better explained too, like why Frankenstein needed so many body parts for one body. The script sadly doesn't work, it is peppered with humour but it's humour that verges on juvenile and often misplaced while the rest of the script could have with some trimming down, there's a fair bit of froth that adds little. Credit is due for not being contradictory or continuity-error-ridden like The Evil of Frankenstein was, but that film at least had Peter Cushing and a better ending. It is a further shame that the Monster here is a joke. The make-up is the cheapest-looking of all the Frankenstein outings, its only distinction being the square head, while David Prowse's performance is disappointingly feeble in a role he should have been perfect for(disappointingly because he went on to play Darth Vader, one of cinema's most iconic villains) being completely lacking in menace and it's difficult to feel a shred of sympathy towards him. Instead he comes across as like the most robotic of robots. Sangster's direction is plodding in a way most of his scripts for Hammer are anything but(the nuances and wit his script have don't translate in his direction), the killings in execution are more unintentionally silly than thrilling and the ending is one big anti-climax.

Overall, an underwhelming Frankenstein film and one of Hammer's weakest but not that bad. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Yes, there was life before Darth Vader. Dave Prowse, these days relegated to autograph shows (his signature: "Dave Prowse IS Darth Vader"), plays the oddly sexual Frankenstein monster in this rather cheesy flick. His Frankie springs forth with a shapely (and clean- shaven), buff chest, defined abs, and tree-trunk thigh and biceps. From the neck up, he's pretty unappealing, but from chin down, he'd be a big hit at a gay disco, barely clad in what look like boxer briefs.

Also of note and flashing some skin: Kate O'Mara plays a buxom housekeeper. Kate has played the devilish sister of two of the greatest characters ever to grace the small screen: Dynasty's Alexis Carrington and Absolutely Fabulous' Patsy Stone. Here she has a fairy substantial role (in a less-than-substantial film) as Victor Frankenstein's housekeeper and concubine.

Victor inherits her, along with the house, and keeps her around even though she can't cook. He does explain why, indirectly: When seeing her for the first time in a while, he comments, appreciatively, that she's put on some weight "in a couple of places." If her costume in this scene had been cut any lower, we'd see her belly button....

This one certainly wasn't ever in the running for an Oscar, but for what it is, it's not exactly unwatchable. It's a modern retelling of a classic tale -- updated to of course include plenty of sex and gore. Like most Hammer films, it's beautifully produced and the sets are pretty convincing (mostly) -- though I found the castle (and the film in general) to be too well-lit to be very spooky.

I was struck by one interesting little tidbit: This film was released by MGM about the same time the studio distributed Dan Curtis's House of Dark Shadows, which has a bit of a Hammer feel to it; and the lovely blonde actress featured in Horror of Frankenstein (Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth) bears a striking resemblance to Nancy Barrett, similarly featured in HODS as sexy vampire Carolyn Stoddard. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but their makeup and hairstyles are slightly similar, and they simply reminded me of each other.

This movie turned out to be a milestone for me as well, but not a very positive one. I've seen 5 Hammer productions so far concerning the topic of baron Frankenstein ( this one not included )and they were all much better. In fact, some of them belong to my ALLTIME favorite horror movies. This version, directed by Jimmy Sangster, is inferior and ten times as boring as all the others. The fact that the legendary Peter Cushing doesn't star as Victor Frankenstein didn't help the film very much neither...

I have to be fair and admit that the movie has a few good moments and several positive aspects. In fact, the whole second half is ENJOYABLE but it never reaches the usual Hammer level and it seems to take hours before something happens. I still can't believe I sat through till that moment. Several times I came close to pressing the 'eject-button', though. The biggest difference ( and failure ) between this version and the true classics is the character of Victor Frankenstein. The baron is portrayed as an egocentric and precocious basterd who doesn't care about anything or anybody. I got the idea that he doesn't even cared about science...he just wants to create life in favor to increase his own status and to help him get rid of people who stand in his way. He doesn't even dig up the bodies to experiment upon himself !! He talks with a very annoying tone of voice and he's too rich in my opinion. That's never good...Normally, I like arrogant characters but this one had something missing...Maybe it was the performance by the rather unknown actor Ralph Bates. He also played Dr. Jeckyll once in a Hammer production, but I didn't see that one. The ONE thing I didn't understand about him was: He's being worshiped by two of the most beautiful women alive and he totally doesn't care. A man's lifework is important but still,...a bit of lovin' is always pleasant, no ? Especially the actress named Kate O'Mara ( she plays Alys, the housekeeper) is gorgeous ! I think she was the main reason why I couldn't force myself to press the 'eject-button'. I assure you, she's a very beautiful woman. When the monster is ( finally ) created, it looks pretty dumb. He looks like a popular football player ( except for the head ) and he eats pigeons !! This movie was shot only one year after Boris Karloff's death and he ALREADY had to turn over in his grave!! Otherwise, there's nothing to worry for him...he'll always be the one and only "Monster of Frankenstein"

On a more positive note: I really the abrupt ending to Horror of Frankenstein. The last 15 minutes are really good and the whole last setting in Victor's attic is a powerful scene. If only Sangster had been able to create this atmosphere during the whole movie !

Precious "rewind"-moment: Baron Frankenstein is having supper with Prof. Heiss who's trying to make conversation with him. While Heiss is talking, the only thing Frankenstein can think is Heiss' brain which he needs to finish his creation. Satisfying scene in an overall disappointing movie...

This movie is pretty much a remake of the original Frankenstein story, only instead of the familiar Peter Cushing playing the role we get a young, suave Ralph Bates. And he does a fine job, he is a joy to watch, handsome and dashing on one hand, ruthless and evil on the other. David Prowse plays the Monster, he certainly has the build for it. And Veronica Carlson and Kate O'mara supply the Hammer glamour, wonderful! Although I would stop short of calling this a horror comedy there is an abundance of tongue in cheek humour, which works well, be it from Bates or Dennis Price as the local undertaker come grave robber. There is no nudity and not a great deal of gore (hence the current 12 rating here in the UK), but it has the usual Hammer brilliance, very colourful and great sets, Gothic horror is what they did best.This is best viewed as a film in its own right as opposed to part of the Hammer Frankenstein series.