SmugKitZine Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very scary movie. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It is one of the scariest movies I have seen. Is a remake. And it is one of the better remake I have seen. If you are looking for a really scary movie see this movie.

TheLittleSongbird The Horror of Frankenstein definitely could have been much better and is rather disappointing compared to how good most Hammer horrors are and the standard of most of the previous Frankenstein entries. But to me it was not as bad as was led to believe.The Horror of Frankenstein does have some things going for it. It's very atmospherically photographed and has equally sumptuous costume and set design and nice shadowy lighting. Malcolm Williamson's haunting score compliments the film's mood most effectively and there are some good performances here. Ralph Bates is particularly notable, okay he's nowhere near as good as Peter Cushing in the role(who I consider the definitive Frankenstein)- but that's a big ask- and he overplays just a little in places but it was interesting to see a Frankenstein with no redeeming qualities; Bates does a great job commanding the screen and attacks the role with gusto. Kate O'Mara and Bernard Archard are equally great and Veronica Carlson is truly entrancing in a very eye-candy-like role but Carlson does give more than that despite not been given as much as she ought to have done. Dennis Price is a lot of cheery fun as a grave robber.The Horror of Frankenstein has a lot of problems though, the two big problems for me being the script and the Monster. The film is very heavy on dialogue but also lacking in action, there are a couple of nice scenes here and there but a lot of the film has some pedestrian storytelling that lacked suspense and freshness. It's not a bad thing if a film takes time to set things up, but The Horror of Frankenstein spends too long a time doing so. Things could have been better explained too, like why Frankenstein needed so many body parts for one body. The script sadly doesn't work, it is peppered with humour but it's humour that verges on juvenile and often misplaced while the rest of the script could have with some trimming down, there's a fair bit of froth that adds little. Credit is due for not being contradictory or continuity-error-ridden like The Evil of Frankenstein was, but that film at least had Peter Cushing and a better ending. It is a further shame that the Monster here is a joke. The make-up is the cheapest-looking of all the Frankenstein outings, its only distinction being the square head, while David Prowse's performance is disappointingly feeble in a role he should have been perfect for(disappointingly because he went on to play Darth Vader, one of cinema's most iconic villains) being completely lacking in menace and it's difficult to feel a shred of sympathy towards him. Instead he comes across as like the most robotic of robots. Sangster's direction is plodding in a way most of his scripts for Hammer are anything but(the nuances and wit his script have don't translate in his direction), the killings in execution are more unintentionally silly than thrilling and the ending is one big anti-climax.Overall, an underwhelming Frankenstein film and one of Hammer's weakest but not that bad. 5/10 Bethany Cox

BaronBl00d 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.

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