Les horreurs de Frankenstein

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.