The Horror of Frankenstein

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.

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.

... 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.