Almost Everyone Hates This One . . . Except Me

I'm with you YelBard1. I thought this movie was a lot of fun. Many tributes to the old Universal fright flicks! As to your question, Hammer intended this to be a stand alone production and not a "sequel" to the other entries. Much like "Scars of Dracula" was a stand alone film in the Dracula series.

Only watched this one once so far, but quite enjoyed it.

I think the greatest strength of Hammer's franchises is that they were able to occasionally try new things (an excellent example being Christopher Lee's silent vampire in Prince Of Darkness. Had it been a stand-alone Dracula film, it might be considered a waste of a great character and a great actor, but because it was 'just' a sequel the silent vampire was a wonderful little gimmick) Similarly, Evil Of Frankenstein is a great little Frankenstein film which tries a completely different look and feel to other entries in the series and the result is quite a novelty.

Meanwhile, I'm just in the middle of watching the wonderfully titled "Dr. Terror's House of Horrors" (thought I recognised one of the actresses as the mute girl from Evil Of Frankenstein, and a quick check of the IMDb reveals I'm right :D ) so it's back to my evening's entertainment...

I think this is a fine film, and it contains as much action as any other Hammer Frankenstein movie. The worst thing I can say about it is that I find it to be a bit bland, but then I find all of the Hammer Frankenstein films to be just a little bland. The only thing I don't like about it, as you pointed out, is that it doesn't follow the first two films.

I wouldn't say I love it, but I don't hate it either

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

I watched it for the first time tonight and I certainly didn't hate it. It's a good old-fashioned creature feature with great sets, a pitiable monster nicely played by Kiwi Kingston (I appreciate the fact that the makeup is an homage to the work Jack Pierce did decades previous), a typically engaging lead performance by Cushing, and an effective antagonist in the form of the greedy hypnotist; Peter Woodthorpe is excellent in the role.

I've only watched the first three films and so far this is my favorite of the three. It was great fun to watch and entertaining at every moment.

I've been waiting for you, Ben.

[deleted]

It is funny to me that so many people that do not like this movie dislike it because it broke continuity with the first two Hammer Frankenstein films.

I think the answer to the question about why Hammer chose to go in a different direction with the series with Evil is best answered by observing the authorship of these films. The first 2 were written by Jimmy Sangster, whereas this was one was written by John Elder, a pen name (to protect against the Writers Union in the UK) for producer Anthony Hinds.

Hinds/Elder preferred a kinder, gentler Baron Frankenstein to the sinister villain conceived by Sangster in the first 2 films. In fact, would argue that the 7 Frankenstein films as produced by Hammer, represent 2 different series -- and 2 other one-off films.

The first series was the first two: Curse of Frankenstein and Revenge of Frankenstein.

Though some have argued that Evils is a one-off film in the 7-film series, I would argue that it marks the beginning of the second series, which I call the John Elder series: Evil of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Created Woman, and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.

(Spoiler alert!) Evil ends with the Baron being consumed by a fire. In both Frankenstein Created Woman and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, the Baron requires the services of an understudy because his hands have been damaged by the fire.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is the one film that really does not have any tie-in to the others. In this one his hands are fine -- and we learn that he is from Bulgaria. I suppose you could stretch to suggest that it could be a sequel to the 1st 2 because the evil persona of the Baron once again shows up. In fact, this version of the Baron is the most vile character of all. This one seems to me to be the true one-off film that has no continuity with the others (it was not written by either Sangster or Elder). Oddly enough, it may be the most beloved Hammer Frankenstein of them all. It was director Terence Fisher's favorite.

Then there was the misstep of Horror of Frankenstein, which was a failed attempt to satirically reboot the original Curse of Frankenstein.

Some Hammer aficionados dislike this one also because many of its plot elements (including the monster's makeup) were lifted from the old Universal Frankenstein films. That makes sense, given that Evil of Frankenstein was distributed globally by Universal.

In terms of the quality of Evil, I would say that it ranks somewhere in the middle of the Hammer Frankenstein films. I do prefer the first 2 and Frankenstein Created Woman over it. But I do like it better than either Horror of Frankenstein or Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell.