great movie, but really awfull job on the monster, it looks so 'fake' and looks like a school kid playing with plaster.
shareI actually liked how clearly fake the make-up was. To me, it just made the monster look all the more man-made, not entirely human, especially with that glazed-over, expressionless gaze.
shareOK...I love the fact the Hammer paid some respect to Universal with the makeup. Yes..it is not Karloff...Hammer never will claim to be. The monster in this movie is second to Lee's monnster in the 1957 Curse of Frankenstein.
sharePersonally, I always liked this particular Frankenstein make-up, "fake"-looking or no. Kiwi Kingston's monster always seemed to move and act like a real resuscitated corpse would, stiff, clumsy, and ungainly. And creepy too, very much a "soulless thing". And yet this monster still made me feel sorry for it the way it was manipulated by everybody (except the mute girl). This is actually one of my favorite Hammer Frankenstein movies, along with Must Be Destroyed and Revenge of, I really don't know why everybody dumps on it all the time. It's got a clever and refreshingly different plot, great sets (including two different but equally cool laboratory sets), and good acting all round. What's the problem?
shareI agree...I liked Curse of Frankenstein, but loved the Evil of Frankenstein..awesome lab scene too! You rock!
shareI've always felt that Roy Ashton's work on EVIL was probably one of the best makeups to come out of a post-Karloff Frankenstein film. It is far superior to that of Lee's monster, and supports the stitched-together-from-corpses premise.
Dead flesh does tend to be grey or yellowish, and Ashton's job on this film was superb in capturing that aspect. The square, blocked-off skull and sunken eyes suggest some aspect of Dr. Frankenstein's "handiwork" with regards to how he built and literally "shaped" his creature.
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree totally!
I personally never thought it was a terrible makeup job, but I was always puzzled over the top of the creature's head which is more square than round. Even the creature from Universal's classics have a more normal, round head.
shareI have to agree with alphasignal3, this one has all the makings of a great Hammer Frankenstein movie, but the creature is so ridiculously fake looking I can't even believe they used it.
shareI like everything about this movie, except the makeup. Karloff's performance and makeup look like Oscar callibur work, compared to this film.
shareMy brothers and I saw this film when teenagers. We liked it but never referred to it by its real name. We used to call it "The Shoebox of Frankenstein" due to the large square heid on Kiwi Kingston. It still makes me laugh calling it that. Watched it again recently and I actually quite liked the makeup. I thought the monster's head and face actually looked like it was made up of decaying flesh. However... it still looks like a shoebox!
shareThe monster make-up sucked serious donkey. They couldn't even make the monster look good on the MCA VHS release, and that's what box art is for!
shareI actually liked the makeup as well. To me, it didn't look remotely human and you wonder what kind of bodies Frankenstein took apart where the parts assembled together would make the monster look like that. The monsters in the other movies are scary as well, but this one is even scarier because it looks the least humanly. The non-realism actually works to its advantage in my opinion.
Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!