MovieChat Forums > The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Discussion > What did you rate ''The Curse of Franken...

What did you rate ''The Curse of Frankenstein'' (1957)?


imdb.com/title/tt0050280/ratings

I gave this fine Hammer horror film 7/10. The familiar story is very well told, and the production is excellent. All the performances are first-rate; Peter Cushing as the mad doctor is outstanding.

What did you rate it? And what do you think of it?


...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!

reply

I also rated it a 7. I watched it immediately preceding Revenge of Frankenstein and it made for really good Halloween-weekend viewing.

reply

That must have been fun! I've seen Revenge of Frankenstein, too. I also gave that one 7/10.


...Justin Glory be, Delbert, you should eat! You're a count, for God's sake!

reply

8 out of 10.
I think this is one of my favorite Frankenstein movies.

reply

I really liked this one. I'd rate the first three Universal Frankenstein movies above it, especially the second—Bride. But this version is no slouch.


...Justin

reply

I gave it an 8. I was debating about giving it a 7 but in the end I liked it a bit to much to give it anything but what I did.

reply

Big disappointment, with a laughable monster who isn't very menacing. The 40 minute set up is pretty dull, which doesn't do much in the way of character development or suspense until the action begins (unlike in Psycho, where both build strongly toward the action). A totally unsympathetic Victor doesn't work for me. Wasted use of Lee and Cushing.
5/10

I'll stick with the Universal Frankenstein movies or the TNT version from 1992
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106959

reply

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it as well as I did. What are your feelings on Hammer horror movies in general?


...Justin

reply

My feelings toward Hammer movies is that they can be visually nice to look at, and that they utilize actors with strong presence (like Lee & Cushing), but fail in terms of plot, dialogue, and special effects. But then I haven't seen many. I thought "Horror of Dracula" was dull (though perhaps better than "Curse of Frankenstein"). I do like their version of The Mummy (1959), which is perhaps even my favorite mummy film.

reply

I saw this film a couple days ago and just came here to post a rating. Just mulling it over. I think I'm a tougher rater than the others in this thread. 7's and 8's go to very good movies. This is not that by any stretch. This is not something I take seriously. There were in fact a few scenes in the so-bad-it's-funny category which, although I enjoy a laugh, does not lend itself to generous rating.

If I make allowances for the time it was made, I can give it the mildest thumbs up. Say, 5.2 out of 10 - which rounds off to 5 for imdb.

reply

If I make allowances for the time it was made...
It's funny you would say that, because I feel as if I have to make such allowances for new horror movies. I have to forgive the modern habit for relying on special effects and gore and for scuttling the story and suspense.

What were the most laughable parts for you? And what parts were good enough to allow for a 5/10, rather than something lower?


...Justin

reply

I gave it a 4, for several reasons.

1) To me, Frankenstein will always be a black and white movie with Boris Karloff. Call that a prejudicial reason.
2) A consistent problem with the Hammer movies is the lighting. Their horror movies are too bright and the lighting tends to be the same whether the action is inside or outside. In a horror movie, atmosphere is everything, and bright lighting kills that.
3) The makeup on the monster's face didn't make him look like a monster. It just looked like a bunch of hastily applied goop.
4) Victor Frankenstein's behavior was so wildly erratic that it wasn't even crazy or creepy. It was just weird.

reply

Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein from Universal Studios are all much better movies than this one; but I still enjoyed this well enough to rate it fairly high and to watch it twice. In fact, I've never seen a Hammer Horror that wasn't at least reasonably entertaining, except for the godawful Straight on 'til Morning.

I see your point about the lighting. Hammer seems to rely more on the sets and costuming for their atmosphere than on the lighting, which is vital to the success of the Universal Horrors. I agree that the monster makeup is disappointing here. (At one point, you can see that it ends just before the neck.) Christopher Lee, though, makes up for it with a strong performance. He's not up to Karloff here, but he's still very good.

I disagree about Victor Frankenstein's behavior. I thought his motivations were clear and understandable at every step; and Peter Cushing's performance is first rate.

...Justin

reply

10! Great movie!

reply

It's definitely within the top ten percent of _all_ films made, so that would be a 10/10.

reply

I gave it an 8 on here. My rating is 7.5 but they don't do half stars here so I rounded up.

Enjoyable old horror flick.

America isnt ready for a gay mexican chicken sandwich - Poultrygeist

reply

Only a 7 for all that praise? Gave it a 7.5.

"She let me go."
~White Oleander

reply

8/10

reply