dougdoepke Plot—a young doctor is interned in an asylum for experimenting on buried corpses. At the asylum, he meets his hero Dr. Frankenstein who's head of the inmate department. Together, they set about Frankenstein's transplanting body parts pursuits.I guess I now know why I didn't go to med school. That brain removal scene may keep me from ever eating hamburger again. I haven't seen other entries in the Hammer Frankenstein series, so I can't make comparisons. But taken as a "stand alone", this film breaks a number of older conventions from Hollywood of the studio era. For example, I kept expecting young, handsome Dr. Helder (Briant) to undergo an attack of conscience and quit Frankenstein's (Cushing) infernal experiments. And surely run off with the sweetly virginal Angel (Smith) to a more ethical life. But he doesn't. Similarly, I was expecting the legendary doctor to get a comeuppance. After all, he connives in a number of deaths at the asylum. But like Helder, the two are allowed to resume their nefarious activities at movies' end. Now, there's a number of deeper questions raised by the screenplay's refusal to punish. Chiefly, how much guilt should attach to the doctors' experiments that after all could result in bringing good people back to life, even if in a cobbled together body. Is that a worthwhile goal or not. And, if so, what research methods are morally acceptable. Anyway, these are questions to think about, and raise the screenplay above the older horror movie conventions. This may not have been the writer's intention, but the morally ambiguous ending does remain suggestive.The 90-minutes is an appropriately ugly production. If asylum inmates weren't loony going in, they soon will be. The rooms and cells are claustrophobic. At the same time, the story's middle part drags a bit without developing but picks up in the final part. And what a burst of inspiration the Angel character is. I've seen nothing quite like her in years of movie watching. All in all, it's a rather thoughtful horror story, while also being big on blood and a caveman monster. I'm just wondering why I sometimes feel like the Neanderthal in the morning, all hairy and misshapen. Oh well, if that means the divine Miss Angel must be close by, I'll consider myself lucky.

Prichards12345 This one is the last of the Hammer Frankenstein movies, released largely to indifference; it can now be seen to be a more traditional style Hammer Horror than the company had been churning out of late. Terence Fisher returned to the genre after an absence of four years to deliver an engaging, if occasionally pedestrian film, and this was to prove his final outing as a director.Peter Cushing, after having been ousted for a younger model in the form of Ralph Bates in The Horror Of Frankenstien (1970) a cheap-looking and badly scripted reboot, is back for one last turn as the Baron, looking considerably older and thinner. but giving his performance the same old gusto and attention to detail. Here Frankenstein is hiding away in an asylum, holding the institute's director in his power (due to a clever plot reveal towards the end) and free to continue his nefarious experiments.He's joined by a young doctor who's banged up on exactly the same charges as Frankenstein - sorcery for grave-robbing and corpse-stitching, and it isn't long before they are rummaging up a new creation. Shayne Briant's look is somewhat reminiscent of Percy Shelly, and he gives a good performance amidst a welter of stalwart British character actors. Madeline Smith is also a very engaging "Angel"; Dave Prowse, who'd played him in Horror, does much better as the monster here - shows you what a good director can do with actors - but it's Cushing's movie of course. Pity about monster's look - a cheapy hirsute approach that's almost as bad as Evil Of Frankenstein's monster.The blue-ray edition is surprisingly eye-popping (literally) in its gore quotient, the only previous DVD and video editions have been severely cut in the UK. I have seen this movie on television, video and DVD, and only the arterial vein in the mouth scene had made it past the censor - Cushing's idea, I believe. Here we have a more gruesome brain op sequence and the restored version of the monster being torn to pieces, as well as random shots of hanging victims, etc. But over all this drifts a spirit of subtle black humour, which is far more likable than the Carry On-style stuff in Horror Of Frankenstein.The last Frankenstein hurrah for Hammer then, and overall it's a decent effort. Personally I still prefer Curse, Revenge, Created Woman and Must Be Destroyed.

TheLittleSongbird Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell for me is one of the weaker films from the Hammer Frankenstein series- Horror's the weakest with Evil second weakest- but that is not meant to be disparaging, just that I preferred Curse, Revenge, Destroyed and Created Woman.Unlike the previous films the low-budget unfortunately does show in the production values especially with the Monster and the brains. The costumes are very stylish and while the sets are claustrophobic considering the setting that was actually appropriate and there is still the Gothic touch. However the photography is not quite as tight this time round(it is brilliant though in the scene where the Monster digs up the graves through a lightning storm, which is one of Hammer's most Gothic scenes) and the Monster make-up/costume despite being intentionally hideous and somewhat the most monster-like also looks a little ridiculous. Cushing also inexplicably wears a wig that doesn't suit him, and even he thought so.However Fisher's direction is as taut as ever, never diluting the atmosphere there is and the music score is appropriately eerie. The script has the odd bit of wit and is very literate, the odd tired spot on just a few occasions but that is all. The story returns to the Gothic roots of Hammer's 50s output, in a nostalgic and affectionate way without being outdated at all. It is compellingly told and while the goriest of the seven Frankenstein films it's not in a gratuitous or over-utilised way; it's also not just suspenseful and at times creepy but it is movingly melancholic too especially with the open ending. It also does a better job showing and exploring the relationship between a mute girl and the monster than in Evil of Frankenstein, there is a rape scene but off-screen and unlike that in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed it was handled with taste and served more of a point in the storytelling and interplay between Frankenstein and Helder is a delight.The performances are uniformly great. Shane Briant gives a restrained performance while always engaging and Madeline Smith is really touching communicating with just her face, body language and eyes. John Stratton is wonderfully slimy and David Prowse acquits himself far better than he did in Horror of Frankenstein, here he is very formidable but I did find myself taking pity on the monster as well(none of which were apparent in his performance in Horror). The acting honours do go to Peter Cushing whose performance brims with authority and he's also quite moving, both from his appearance and that it was the last time he played the Doctor/Baron. Look out also for Bernard Lee and Patrick Troughton. All in all, a solid Hammer Frankenstein film and a very fitting end to the series and for Terence Fisher. From the title, you'd think it'd be cheesy and amateurish but it's anything but. 8/10 Bethany Cox

snicewanger By 1973 Hammer's Dr Frankenstein series had pretty much run it's course. Peter Cushing had given the character everything he could give by this time, and looked rather tired and frail in this particular interpretation of Dr. F. Terrence Fisher was back at the helm and brought back the look and feel of Hammer to the film and did the best that could be done with a rather tired screenplay. Madeline Smith was nicely cast as a mute girl. Shane Bryant was a forgettable juvenile lead. David Prowse played the monster for a second time, and became the only actor to do so, he was also 3 years away from playing Darth Vader. The action takes place at an asylum but the script is a rework of the previous five films and Cushing had to use every trick in his actor's reportorial to keep things moving . There is a bit more gore in this film but that was part of the horror of the 70's. I will give makeup artist Eddie Knight credit for creating a really horrific looking monster."Monster from Hell" isn't terrible but it's not real good either. The story is watchable and if you are a Peter Cushing fan, which I am,or you wish to view the complete Hammer Frankenstein series you will definitely want to watch "Monster from Hell" but if you are just wanting to see a chilling horror movie some dark and stormy midnight, you will probably want to find something else. RIP Hammer Frankenstein.