ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

NDbportmanfan Frankenstein Created Woman centers around Baron Frankenstein trying to re-animate life, so that humans can become immortal. Surprise, surprise but in this film instead of just shocking a corpse with a lightning bolt he is now focused on the role the human soul has in the process of death. The whole process of reanimation as well as what the undead can remember all felt unique and interesting. It might have been passed over in 1967 as this film doesn't appear to be in high regard as other Hammer horror films but from what I have seen this should be somewhere near the top of the list. The downside or real eye rolling aspect of the film was the Baron's assistant. He had to of been one of the most naive characters I have ever seen! I know they have to make him look dumb compared to Frankenstein but come on he is a doctor. Even the towns people picked up the events that took place quicker than the doctor. This was an entertaining film from beginning to end.

classicsoncall In yet another twist on the Frankenstein mythos, the Baron (Peter Cushing) turns a disfigured character into a normal looking human being, while the brain transplant standard is replaced here by a soul transplant. It makes me wonder if James Brown might have been a fan.The first thing I noticed when the Baron was removed from his self imposed cryogenic sleep was how easily his assistant Wertz (Thorley Walters) was able to move his frozen arms away from his chest. But at least the Baron redeemed himself with his latest theory, the idea that one's soul stays with the body for a time if suspended in a death like state. This all comes in handy when another of the Baron's aides is put to death for a murder he didn't commit. When Hans' (Robert Morris) execution by guillotine is witnessed by his girlfriend Christina (Susan Denberg), the distraught young woman commits suicide by drowning.The whole soul transference business didn't make a lot of sense to me but it made for an interesting tale of revenge and murder on the part of the transformed Christina. She takes out the three dandies that ridiculed her and beat her father to death and did it in pretty elegant style if you consider the new look as a blonde bombshell she acquired along with the soul work over.Well I guess none of it has to make any sense if you're a Horror film fan, and coming into this year's Halloween celebration, these flicks were all over the place. There are enough horror elements here for those who like to see blood, and for romance fans, this wouldn't be the first time a guy lost his head over a girl.

GusF This film is marginally better than its lacklustre predecessor "The Evil of Frankenstein" but still not great. It's a bit of an odd one. It's more of a Hammer thriller than a Hammer horror film, really. Thorley Walters is very good as Professor Hertz and Peter Blythe, Barry Warren and Derek Fowlds are all suitably vile and obnoxious as Anton, Karl and Johann but, as the de facto leading man for the first half of the film, Robert Morris falls far short. It's hard to gauge Susan Denberg's performance as Christina since she was dubbed but I wasn't too impressed with Nikki Van der Zyl's emotionless voice over performance. The rest of the supporting cast was solid. Duncan Lamont, the only actor besides Peter Cushing to appear in both this and the previous film, was far more impressive in his brief scene as Han's father than as the Chief of Police in "The Evil of Frankenstein".It's a little unclear where this film takes place in the series' chronology, though the fact that Frankenstein's hands are badly injured would suggest that he burnt them in the fire at the end of "The Evil of Frankenstein". The fact that Frankenstein, while somewhat darker than in that film, is nowhere near as villainous as in "The Curse of Frankenstein" and "The Revenge of Frankenstein" would tend to suggest that it takes place in the series' second continuity rather than in its first. In contrast to those two films, Frankenstein is essentially the hero, albeit not a terribly sympathetic one, and comes across as a poor man's version of Van Helsing rather than as the utterly vile yet extremely compelling original version of Frankenstein. Overall, the plot was rather silly and not in a good way. I liked the metaphysical aspects of the film but they deserved a better treatment than the script provided them with.

lemon_magic I was glad to see in the opening credits that Terence Fisher was directing this effort...the man had an impressive string of successful and interesting films to his credit,many of them in the Hammer style. And Cushing is always worth watching. But somehow, this one didn't quite work as well for me. It wasn't bad, of course - Fisher doesn't make "bad" films. But the story didn't quite gel, and left me unsatisfied.Of course, part of this dissatisfaction may be due to the 40+ year time span and the changes in standards and expectations in both cinema and society. As it is, I can see some of the themes being explored here - class, and sex, and oppression, and revenge, and role playing, and a bunch of other intriguing issues. I can respect that, but I think the Road Runner style ending (the movie just stops short about 2 minutes after the final act of vengeance) and the usual Hammer emphasis on sex and gore and shock kept the two aspects of the movie from landing on target the way a Hammer film usually does.And of course, there's no Frankenstein "monster" AGAIN. Yes, I can see that the resurrected women plays the role, but I hate it when they have a Frankenstein movie without a bolt-necked, heavy browed freak of nature somewhere on the premises.But I'm not sorry I bought the movie and I will keep it my collection, and who knows, I may enjoy it more on repeated viewings.