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.

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 As always, there were exceptions - and this curio is one.Peter Cushing, apparently now too old to play the Baron, is superseded by Ralph Bates in a bid to bring sex appeal to the role of Frankenstein.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

Cheese Hoven This film seems more stitched together than the monster's body. A long series of clichés- all past their sell-by date by 1970- are brought together to make this lacklustre addition to the Frankenstein franchise. An old castle, dummkopf locals, good girl/bad girl... these are all things we have seen before. Many times. Ralph Bates strikes a new note, however, as a truly loathsome Frankenstein, which he plays perfectly. This is quite a change from the honestly enquiring scientist who gets caught up meddling in things beyond his power. Bates is completely unscrupulous from the start; he has already decided on a course of evil before the monster is even conceived. In this course he is aided by his social position and his indulgence by everyone he meets, particularly the ladies (well they do like a bastard don't they?). The first two thirds of the film, although rather drawn out, is actually the best portion in hindsight. As a study in how a loathsome egomaniac being indulged can get steadily worse, it is quite good. And a good turn by Dennis Price as a self serving grave robber who lets his wife doing all the dirty work, is slyly humorous. Where the film really disappoints is with the appearance of the monster. Here the clichés really kick in. Some highly predictable sequences lead to its strange unsatisfying end.