Nigel P 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 As always, there were exceptions - and this curio is one.Peter Cushing, apparently now too old to play the Baron, is superseded by Ralph Bates in a bid to bring sex appeal to the role of Frankenstein.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.

jefuab The Horror of Frankenstein 1970 Jimmy Sangster 2/100Quick review: Boring, inconsequential, poor, unimaginative and derivative Frankenstein detritus with nice sets and decent direction. Another film about the rise and fall of Dr Frankenstein but this time Frankenstein is totally evil. Ralph Bates gives an embarrassingly unimpressive performance in this Hammer effort. His is an amateurish attempt at a devilish baron, one you might expect from a child. David Prowse gives one of the worst portrayals of Shelley's monster that I can recall seeing. He casually walks about as though he's in the gym and follows direction like a robot; failing to drum up fear, suspense or intrigue. I've no idea how many films have been made about Dr Frankenstein and his monster and that's a big part of the problem I had with this film. By the time it was produced Hammer alone had already made 5 Frankenstein films and had a very good Victor Frankenstein in Peter Cushing. "The Horror of Frankenstein" relies on the existence of previous films and the original novel to get by. It doesn't bring anything new to the story and its attempts at being a little different are nugatory. "The Horror of Frankenstein" is pure mullock.

ShadeGrenade Jimmy Sangster, Hammer's best screenwriter, sadly passed on a short time ago. 'Horror Of Frankenstein' ( 1970 ) was his first film as director, and not one I imagine he was particularly proud of. We are used nowadays to movie franchises getting rebooted almost as soon as they are established - it saves Hollywood from having to do anything drastic such as coming up with new ideas, and there is a gullible audience waiting to lap up the new version so they can go on internet movie forums afterwards and give the old one a right kicking. It may surprise some to learn that 'rebooting' is not a new concept. After five films starring the excellent Peter Cushing as 'Baron Victor Frankenstein', Hammer decided to 'freshen up' the series by bringing in a younger actor - the handsome, charismatic Ralph Bates. Furthermore, the script for 'Horror' would follow the plot of 'Curse of Frankenstein' - the first film in the series - closely. But the Cushing version was a misguided genius who only wanted to help Mankind, whereas Bates' Victor is a caddish swine out for personal glory, who seduces maids and electrocutes his best friend Wilhelm ( Graham James ).The first draft was by Jeremy Burnham, an actor who wrote some fine episodes of 'The Avengers'. Sangster rewrote it but with no improvement noticeable. The idea seems to have been to make a Frankenstein film in tune with the sensibilities of the late '60's/early '70's, hence Victor's sleeping around and cynical 'get-rich-and-famous-quick' attitudes, but the end result does not gel. Despite the title, there is little horror. The creature Victor stitches together is a lumbering, bald-headed giant ( Dave Prowse, the future 'Darth Vader' from 'Star Wars' ) who looks as though he has wandered out of an episode of 'Eastenders'. Victor eventually uses him as a killing machine. No attempt whatever is made to give the creature a character, as happened in James Whale's celebrated 1931 version with Boris Karloff. Frankly, 'Oddbod' from 'Carry On Screaming' ( 1966 ) was scarier.Some good actors - Jon Finch, James Cossins, Bernard Archard, and Dennis Price ( as a grave robber ) - are around, but aren't able to save the picture. It is never sure what it wants to be - a comedy or a straight horror flick. In the former department, a severed arm makes a V-sign when Victor puts electricity through it, and the final scene sees the creature's boots bobbing to the surface of a vat of acid ( how could that happen? ). Not only are these the best jokes in the film, they're the only jokes in the film! The main reasons to see this are Kate O'Mara and Veronica Carlson, whose heaving bosoms prevented me from nodding off. Carlson had appeared in the most recent Hammer Frankenstein - the vastly superior 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed' ( 1969 ). O'Mara is very good as the sexy, blackmailing maid 'Alys'.'Horror' flopped to no-one's great surprise, and Cushing was brought back three years later to star in the Terence Fisher-directed 'Frankenstein & The Monster From Hell' which was better, but not much. Prowse returned to play a different monster. Sangster made one more film - 'Lust For A Vampire' - which showcased the talents of my favourite Swedish actress of the time - Yutte Stensgaard. After that, it was back to the typewriter for him.

slayrrr666 "The Horror of Frankenstein" is one of the best entries in Hammer's series.**SPOILERS** Growing bored in school, Victor Frankenstein, (Ralph Bates) feels that his studies deserve more attention, and finally manages to take over the family's affairs as well as Alys, (Kate O'Mara) the maid. Wanting to go to medical school in Vienna, he ends up going away, upsetting his friends at school Stephan, (Steven Tyler) Maggie, (Glenys O'Brian) and Elizabeth, (Veronica Carlson) before gaining a friend in anatomy classmate Wilhelm, (Graham Jones) before returning and beginning experimentation on regeneration. As they continue their experiments, they realize they can bring dead objects back to life. He soon wants to push the boundaries of the experiments, which starts to offset him from the whole thing. When he announces that he wants to bring a human creature, (David Prowse) back to life, his feelings about it are resurfaced even stronger than before. When the experiments are completed and they successfully raise the man-made creature from the dead, it gets loose and commences a reign of murder and terror, forcing him to decide if it is best if he killed the monster.The Good News: This was a really decent and enjoyable entry. As this is a later film in the Hammer collection, this one can finally let loose with gore and nudity, and both here are in full abundance. There are ample deaths in this movie, both by Victor and the monster, including having a person immersed in acid, another is electrocuted, several are poisoned and another one has a rifle explode in his face. There is even more blood and gore from the deceased, as a dead person is decapitated, one has his limbs dismembered, and others have other body parts hacked off and sewn together into the creature with massive amounts of blood-loss in the process. Even the monster had a violent kill, hacking a man with an ax several times. Not exactly the greatest amount of variety in the deaths, but this one has bloodier results. Even the several sex scenes are an improvement in earlier films, as the sexuality of the scenes is now fully capable of being shown in detail. Several women are shown nude, but the best has to be Kate, as she is shown in several situations and is really nice to view. The castle is also a really nice set-piece, with the long, dark corridors, the large Gothic interiors are pretty creepy and impressive upon first viewing, and the laboratory set-pieces are all quite fun. They add immensely to its creepiness and lends a bit more of the original Gothic tones in the original novel. Even the grave-robbing scenes are quite creepy and fit in quite well with the tone of the film. There's also plenty to enjoy about it's scenes in the lab as they go about their experiments, which are all done rather well. With the progression from animals to people being quite natural, it feels quite disturbing as well with the amount of time spent around the cadavers, which are grossly disfigured and marked-up, complete with the surgeries on them to put it all together being quite nauseating at times. The last big plus is that the last half of the film is somewhat more entertaining and enjoyable with the inclusion of several rather fun scenes. The monster's rampages through the woods are nice and suspenseful, the attacks are brutal and much more, making it a rather enjoyable series of scenes. These here are the film's good points.The Bad News: There wasn't a whole lot really wrong with this one. The depiction of Victor as a womanizing, lying thief is pretty much the main fault within the movie. It didn't feel like it was in good taste to do so, as he was perhaps more villainous than the monster. It didn't serve the movie that well with them doing so, as there isn't a pay-off for the whole scenario and it simply makes the film a cheat as he doesn't get his comeuppance at all. Also, the monster design looks terrible and it's not very imposing. The creature is a pretty threatening-looking person, but the makeup was a disaster, simply applying scars on the body at various places to look as if he was in fact put together fairly quickly. Maybe a large FX budget could've supplies a more grotesque-looking creature. It really drags the scenes of it down somewhat considerably. These, though, are the film's few flaws.The Final Verdict: It's not the best in the series, but this is still a very entertaining entry that all fans of Hammer films and the series will enjoy. Later-era Hammer fans are encouraged to give this one a shot, as well as those who enjoy the genre's output at the time, though those looking for other factors are encouraged to heed caution.Today's Rating; R: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Adult Language, and several short sex scenes