The Horror of Frankenstein (1971)

Nice effects though.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is a Comedy and a parody and still it isn't silly. That's what all Frankensteins Before this one were with the obvious exception of The Bride of Frankenstein but that's Another story. The scientific part of at all is of course ridiculous but that is what to be expected and the film makes no excuses. The actors play it all in the best Hammer manor, which is as if it all was Shakespeare or worse. Peter Cushing is not among the actors, which is good in this case because then the film would have taken off in totally different direction and lost most of its humour.

Victor Frankenstein is a gifted but zealous medical student, researching into the mysteries of existence. Whilst on a summer break, he determines that he will create a man from the body parts of dead people and give him life. Can this madness succeed ?This is an engaging, straightforward adaptation of the classic Mary Shelley novel, almost like a colour remake of the James Whale / Boris Karloff version. When Hammer Films made The Curse Of Frankenstein in 1957, they weren't allowed to copy Jack Pierce's iconic flat-head-bolted-together look, but Prowse (alias Darth Vader) is an impressive lookalike here; a mute, stomping, creepy, destructive evil force. Despite not being Peter Cushing, Bates is excellent as the Bad Baron, giving a performance which is so direct and unflamboyant (Kenneth Branagh, please take note) as to be stylishly unstylish. He matter-of-factly kills his father, his best friend, his lover, a neighbour, and - most fiendish of all - a pet tortoise for the sake of his black-hearted work, all the while maintaining a clear, unflappably calm, pragmatic, even agreeable intellect. This was the second of five key roles Bates made for Hammer, and he is terrific in all of them (particularly Dr Jekyll & Sister Hyde). The only truly original aspect of this version is the new character of the scheming lover/housekeeper Alys, played with great aplomb, a somewhat wobbly accent and a dress that's about to fall down, by O'Mara. The agreeable cast is filled out by the equally ravishing Hammer regular Carlson (check her out also in Dracula Has Risen From The Grave), a rather corpulent Price as a cheery graverobber who meets a grisly end and the always watchable Finch (Frenzy, The Tragedy Of Macbeth) who underplays it nicely in the burgermeister role which is so frequently hammed up. Co-writer, producer and director Sangster was in many ways the backbone of Hammer, penning the scripts and assisting in the production of a great many of these classic British horrors. This is one of his few directorial efforts (though he and Bates made the enjoyable Lust For A Vampire the next year) and is probably the direct, no frills, classic adaptation of the great story he wanted to make. For a tale that's been told so many times, both before and since, this is a well made, faithful and entertaining movie and one of the better versions of Shelley's groundbreaking horror masterpiece.

I want to say, up front, that this is a fine Gothic Frankenstein film. It's actually based upon a fairly straightforward Frankenstein theme, (semi-mad doctor wants to make monster, the brain is damaged, and the monster kills people), but Dr. Victor Frankenstein (very credibly played by Ralph Bates) comes off as a classic, if cultured, psychopath. He cares naught in the slightest about the sanctity of human life, as long as his vision of creating a man (from used parts) is fulfilled.Here are the numerous characteristics (events) which generate most viewers' dark paradigm of this particular Dr. Victor Frankenstein: 1. He has the sex drive of Don Juan and Rasputin combined and any consequences of his amorous advances do not concern him in the least. After impregnating his University Dean's daughter, he just drops her like a hot rock, never giving her a further thought. He also demands double-duty from his lovers... sex slave on demand and housekeeper routinely.2. He really savours killing people (you can tell by the smirk on his face as he does so), including his father, a highwayman (whom he also decapitates), his best friend and assistant, the provider of his corpses, and a local professor (via poison). He even kills an associate's pet tortoise with a smile! 3. He much enjoys setting his monster to killing: the corpse-snatcher's greedy wife, a lover and, a woodsman who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.4. He's really into personal intimidation of those who are supposed to be his superiors while he is a medical student and later on too.This 1970 British story goes like this: Dr. Frankenstein decides (as a student) that his big goal will be to create a man (basically from corpse parts) so he takes on a pal whom eventually becomes more and more skittish as the experiments with body parts become more and more audacious and heinous. People who get into the way of the young Doctor's plans are snuffed without a second thought. So, what I'm saying here is that there are no huge surprises.True to the Hammer philosophy, this film is not hair-raising scary like, say, "The Exorcist," "Halloween," or Hitchcock's "Psycho," albeit it's a much darker film than all the other Hammer Frankenstein flicks. This is clearly due to the fact that this movie was directed by Hammer's fair-haired horror writer, Jimmy Sangster, who had clearly been drooling to actually direct one of these films. It's really all just quite entertaining.There are even intermittent moments of sly humor to be found throughout the movie. At one point, a buxom lass of the Doctor's former acquaintance is practically displaying her mammalian wares for him and he wryly comments, "You've gained weight in a couple of places." Nicely put! The monster is a bit of an enigma. Played by David Prowse, his face is left pretty much unchanged, make-up-wise -- there is just the add-on to the top of the head. The monster thus looks a lot like one of my larger neighbors. He's not a very shrewd monster as the brain, of course, was damaged somewhat by the corpse-snatcher having dropped it. Just your basic killer who generally follows his master's instructions in order to get fed. This particular brain, by the way, was a sort of steel-blue in its hue and I thought that was a little strange.The filmscore is superb, composed and conveyed by Malcolm Williamson. It embraces that late 60s atmospheric ambiance which goes along so well with period monster flicks, akin to the themes of the great Les Baxter. The film is shot in letterbox and the sets and locations are outstanding. The long shot of the ominous castle is simply timeless. The color saturation is of equal high-quality.In summary, we do somewhat miss the great Peter Cushing in this Hammer entry; however, it's a fine performance by Ralph Bates and his supporting cast and I think, overall, is one of the best Frankenstein films that I've seen anywhere.

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.