winner55 Yes, this pilot failed to sell a show to American TV. Nevermind; it is the first in the series of Hammer Frankenstein films that ran well into the '70s. Everything is here - the homage to universal, the darker characterization of Doctor Frankenstein, the decision to place the series in a 19th century setting.... The ending of this short film would be rewritten as the end of "The Curse of Frankenstein." Okay, it's not really much more than a neat little B-movie short; but what else would one want from a Hammer horror film? And the hiring of Universal horror films writer Curt Siodmak to write the script is a nice touch of linking with the 'grand tradition' of Frankenstein films. Besides, it must be noted that the budget here is really far beyond any American TV programming of the day; nice sets, nice photography, excellent acting.(What probably killed off this series was the follow up - there was actually a second episode produced - I've seen it, but can't remember the title - but it was pretty typical generic suspense fair for the time - well produced but unnecessary.) This wins high marks as a point of historical origin and thus very important. And a well done B-movie horror short in any event.

Witchfinder General 666 TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN of 1958 is the pilot from the British Hammer Studios, which was never continued as a TV series. This was made right after Hammer's first successful and highly influential Gothic Horror film THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) starring the great Peter Cushing in the role of the eponymous Baron, a role which he would reprise five more times. On the one hand, it is highly regrettable that TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN, which stars the sinister Anton Diffring, never became a show. On the other hand, it is debatable whether Hammer had made any sequels to their first success, if their had been a FRANKENSTEIN show on TV; since the FRANKENSTEIN sequels from Hammer are entirely great, some arguably even greater than the 1957 film, their not having been produced would be tragic for the world of Horror.TALES OF FRANKENSTEIN is interesting in particular due to the charismatic performance of Anton Diffring, a specialist for sinister characters, and due to the fact that it mixes the styles of Hammer and the original Universal Horror films. Especially by its looks, this has a stronger resemblance to the Classic Horrors from Universal. The set pieces are Gothic and elegant, and the film has a nice, eerie atmosphere. The storyline is interesting enough: Baron Frankestein (Diffring) is experimenting on his creation, trying to make the monster less aggressive. A terminally ill concert pianist (Richard Bull) and his wife come to Frankenstein's castle in order to ask for the Baron's help...Overall, this 28-minute flick is a highly interesting little gem that especially Classic Horror fans should not miss. Diffring is great (even though not quite as great as Cushing), the atmosphere is gloomy, and the story interesting. Ignoring the previously made assumption that making the TV show might have resulted in the film sequels not being made, one can only say: Too bad this series was never made. It would have probably been quite something. Not to be missed.

MartinHafer The idea of making a weekly monster show for television was very clever--and a soap opera-like version of this concept was successful in the late 1960s with "Dark Shadows". However, while the idea was great, the execution left a lot to be desired. In this pilot episode, the entire story you'd find in a full-length Frankenstein film is crammed into this tiny time slot. As a result, all the subtlety and atmosphere is diminished. It's obvious that it just wasn't working when an excellent choice for the Doctor (Anton Diffring) came off as bland. He should have been a lot better and easily could if they had done just one thing that "Dark Shadows" did--don't try to tell the entire story in 27 minutes but make the stories multi-part so they aren't rushed. The pilot could have easily lasted two or three or even more episodes. But, because it is rushed, the story is flat...and there was too much use of poorly integrated stock footage (such as the vampire women from Dracula). Too bad, as a weekly monster show was a great idea.If you are curious and wish to see it, it's available for free download at archive.org--a site often linked to IMDb.

Michael_Elliott Tales of Frankenstein (1958) *** (out of 4) Hammer originally produced this as a TV pilot but when it didn't sell they just threw it into theaters as a short and it turned out to be a pretty good one. Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster but accidentally uses a criminal's brain. He gets a chance to correct the mistake when a man dies after his wife begged the doctor to keep him alive. The doctor decides to put the dead man's brain into the body of the monster. I can understand this thing not selling as a TV pilot because there's really no place to go but as a short the thing is quite the success and in the end turns out to be a rather effective version of the classic tale. What I enjoyed most was the actual monster who had a pretty good look and he's given quite a bit to do. I really enjoyed the first creation scene when the monster attacks Frankenstein only to have some electrical equipment to go crazy and give him a real shock. The stuff at the end, when the dead man remembers who he is, was also very effective. The make up was clearly trying to look like the Karloff version but the large actor and the puffy cheeks makes him look more like Chaney from THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. The performances were good as is the direction so fans of the monster will certainly want to check this out.