Watch The Horror of Frankenstein For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

Blistering performances.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

I have for years bored people rigid with my belief that some of Hammer's most interesting films came during the last few years of their existence as purveyors of horror, as they attempted to boost their fading market. This lead to experimentation, which worked beautifully with some of their output. As always, there were exceptions - and this curio is one.Peter Cushing, apparently now too old to play the Baron, is superseded by Ralph Bates in a bid to bring sex appeal to the role of Frankenstein. He is surrounded by a bevy of beautiful young women, including Elizabeth (Veronica Carlson) and Alys (Kate O'Mara). Bates is always enjoyable and nicely intense, although inevitable comparisons with 'how Cushing would have done it', would never be kind - after all, Bates is playing a philanderer, a young stud. A different take on the Baron.The jokes are very familiar to audiences of the time - everyone is horny, and the prospect and consequences of sex is tip-toed around for comedy effect, that and an amputated arm giving Victor a two-fingered salute. Dennis Price, a hugely talented and respected actor in his younger days, is much fun here as a lackadaisical grave-robber and gives the best performance in the film.The resultant story is not that different from 'Scars of Dracula', with which it was released, and which also disappointed at the box office. If anything, 'Scars' went further into later 'Carry On' territory than this - at least there are a few amusing asides here other than skin-flick slapstick.Dave Prowse's lumbering, bald-headed creature has a hulking effectiveness about him. The sound of his heavy, chain-crunching footsteps presses at least a few of the required horror buttons, although he is entirely devoid of any personality. Whenever he appears, Malcolm Williamson's soundtrack echoes H.J. Salter's music heralding Lon Chaney's monster in 1942's 'Ghost of Frankenstein' from Universal.The story itself shadows that of the 1958 Hammer original in a sedate style. This isn't a bad film (although the budget limitations are as obvious here as many Hammer films from this period), just rather under-whelming. As if aware of this, director (and co-writer) Jimmy Sangster seems deliberately to end the story in the most downbeat way possible.

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.

This film seems more stitched together than the monster's body. A long series of clichés- all past their sell-by date by 1970- are brought together to make this lacklustre addition to the Frankenstein franchise. An old castle, dummkopf locals, good girl/bad girl... these are all things we have seen before. Many times. Ralph Bates strikes a new note, however, as a truly loathsome Frankenstein, which he plays perfectly. This is quite a change from the honestly enquiring scientist who gets caught up meddling in things beyond his power. Bates is completely unscrupulous from the start; he has already decided on a course of evil before the monster is even conceived. In this course he is aided by his social position and his indulgence by everyone he meets, particularly the ladies (well they do like a bastard don't they?). The first two thirds of the film, although rather drawn out, is actually the best portion in hindsight. As a study in how a loathsome egomaniac being indulged can get steadily worse, it is quite good. And a good turn by Dennis Price as a self serving grave robber who lets his wife doing all the dirty work, is slyly humorous. Where the film really disappoints is with the appearance of the monster. Here the clichés really kick in. Some highly predictable sequences lead to its strange unsatisfying end.

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.