AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Michael_Elliott The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) * 1/2 (out of 4)Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) stages his own father's murder so that he can get the family money and head off to a college where he can continue to learn his trade. Before long he is stealing dead bodies so that he can experiment with life but the creature he makes could lead to his downfall.After a number of pictures with Peter Cushing in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, Hammer decided to start the decade off going in a new direction and even the biggest fanboy will admit that the result is the worst picture they did with the subject. THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN is basically a retelling of the 1931 Universal picture as well as THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN but sadly it's a complete failure all around.There is so much wrong with this picture but you can start with the incredibly dull and lifeless screenplay that doesn't have anything going for it. I guess they wanted to present this Dr. Frankenstein to a younger crowd so the first three scenes in the movie basically has him being a know-it-all jerk and proving people wrong. These scenes, I'm guessing, were meant to be funny but they're more annoying than anything.Another major problem is that nothing new or original is done with the entire story. We get non-stop scenes of boring dialogue with characters going back on forth and discussing things that just aren't all that interesting. Even worse is the fact that the film finally gets the monster and delivers a major dud. This monster is without question one of the worst looking in the history of Frankenstein on film. You've basically got an extended head and that's it! Take a look at the red markings on his body and you'd swear someone with a crayon drew them on!So, with a boring story, a weak Frankenstein and an awful monster, what does THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN get right? Well, not too much actually but I guess you could say that it was well-filmed and the sets do look nice. Yes, that's about all that this film offers, which is too bad because Hammer really could have came into the new decade with something strong but instead they deliver a weak and old-fashioned dud.

Simon Alford I really enjoy "The Horror of Frankenstein." Despite the consensus on this forum (and, sadly, on nearly all movie sites), this is a rewarding and entertaining retelling of the Frankenstein tale. By 1970, Hammer had pretty much mined Shelley's story, releasing films in this series every few years. The Hammerheads were looking for a new direction and "The Horror of..." was born. They enlisted the author of the screenplay for their original Frankenstein film (The Curse of...) to helm this production. Instead of rehashing old ground, they decided to make the Doctor a cruel determined man (who is no doubt more frightening than the monster) and add a healthy dose of black humour to the proceedings. As far as I can tell, the detractors of the film find the addition of the humour to be the deal-breaker. Added to that, the film revels in an almost campy atmosphere. This may be a surprise to those who vehemently disregard the film but the atmosphere created is deliberate. Sure, it's not like the other Hammer Frankenstein film, it's a new direction.What's not to like about Dennis Price as the grave robber? Who could complain about the beautiful Kate O'Mara? (Or her ample cleavage, continually on display.) Perhaps I like the film because it was one of the first horror movies I saw in a cinema (doubled with "Scars of Dracula" no less!). Maybe I just like horror movies. It could be for any of those reasons but I keep coming back to it every few years because just the look of Hammer turns me on. If you watch in the spirit in which it is presented, I think you too will have an old-fashioned good time.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Jackson Booth-Millard I recognised a name or two in the cast, then I saw that it was a Hammer Horror film, so I thought it was worth at least a try. Basically a younger Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates, replacing Peter Cushing) is the misunderstood scientist, who is determined not just to study life and the human body, but make it. With the help of some grave robbers and his anatomical knowledge, he wants to create what could be the perfect human specimen. Of course the Monster (David Prowse, the man inside Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, replacing Sir Christopher Lee) created is an aggressive thing that obeys a few orders to get meaty rewards, but ultimately it is not a perfect specimen. Also starring Kate O'Mara as Alys, Graham James as Wilhelm Kassner, Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth Heiss and Bernard Archard as Prof. Heiss. This is supposed to be a remake to Hammer's original Curse of Frankenstein, it is not counted as the sixth in the series because of this fact, and because it is a little ridiculous. Adequate!