MovieChat Forums > The Horror of Frankenstein (1971) Discussion > Not bad, just misunderstood.

Not bad, just misunderstood.

posted 19 years ago by eraserhd79
32 replies | jump to latest

Hi all,
Geez this movie has such a bad rep. Which i dont quiet understand..
Yes, it is a re-tred of the original hammer frankenstein.. But in all honesty its my 2nd fav of the hammer frankensteins (after "...monster from hell") and just a slight better than "the curse of frankenstein" Why? Well I think its because of the humor in it. I love Ralph Bates as Victor, At turns charming and likeable, at others twisted and psychotic. I love the thick streak of dark humor that lies just beneath the surface. Its not a comedy. But it is very very funny. Again, its also cause of Ralph Bates. I think he is one of the best leads that hammer produced, after Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.
I think he was brilliant in this, sadly he never was given another part quiet this excellent again (hammer-wise). "Dr jekeyl and sister hyde" was another good role, I wished Hammer would of used him more. And his small parts in "fear in the night", "lust for a vampire" and "taste the blood of dracula" are memorable (he's the bright spot on all of these sub-par efforts from Hammer).
To thoes who havent seen this yet, check it out for yourselves and dont just not see it based on all the reviews. It is a gem waiting to be re-discoverd by thoes who like there horror with a sense of humor.

Cheers!

"In the quiet words of the virgin mary.... Come again?" - Bricktop from "Snatch"

[–] d-bowery 18 years ago

[–] HombreOfAnotherEra 12 years ago

I agree!

I can't see why this film has such a bad reputation!

I saw it on TV one night and its stuck with me like many other Hammer films. The main reason its stayed in my head was Ralph bates! I've become a fan of him since and Its a great film...

People really shouldn't compare. It is a real shame he wasn't in many other Hammer films with such a good leading role :(

I agree with you d-bowery. The film is very good. Bates was great as a villain. Pity he was very underrated and had a short life. I remember him in Taste The Blood Of Dracula, and he was great in that too.

[–] marktayloruk 9 years ago

Saw it for first time last night and found it hilarious.Pity there was no sequel.What if Bates had met Cushing?

[–] nickm2 17 years ago

And HONESTLY...Veronica & Kate were both INCREDIBLY beautiful in this film too!

NickM

[–] webfix 17 years ago

I agree totally!

Veronica Carlson especially is my all-time fave Hammer girl!

The Webmaster
Single Movie Lovers
www.singlemovielovers.co.uk

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Woodyanders 17 years ago

I thought this film was a dryly amusing tongue-in-cheek black comedy hoot. Ralph Bates was deliciously depraved as Victor Frankenstein. Dennis Price was a sleazy hoot as a blithely odious graverobber. Moreover, Kate O'Mara and Veronica Carlson are two of the most breathtakingly beautiful women to ever appear in a Hammer film. The hilariously ironic ending really hits the sidesplitting spot, too.

Q: What's the biggest room in the world? A: The room for improvement.

[–] jquirk-1 17 years ago

I've been saying this for years - this is the best Hammer Frankenstein film. At some point, the history books on the Hammer film collection will be rewritten, and a majority of critics will point to this film and agree it was terribly underrated for years, but that time has made it clear it's the best Hammer Frankenstein film. Don't get me wrong. I love the other films with Peter Cushing. They're great. But this one clearly stands above the Cushing lot, and a lot of it has to do with Ralph Bates' sinister, ruthless performance.

SPOILER WARNING: Bates is more of a monster than the monster, and I'm certain he notches up a higher body count than the monster. He kills his best friend, his lover, his grave robber, the grave robber's wife, an unarmed highwayman, his wannabe fiance's father, and his own father, for Heaven's sake. Ok, ok, the monster killed the grave robber's wife and the lover, but the monster was instructed to do so by Bates.

[–] josephnatescott 9 years ago

Curse is the best Hammer Frankenstein. It's wonderful. But this is very enjoyable. Anyone who likes it might like The Two Faces Of Dr. Jekyll, Die Die My Darling, and Lust For A Vampire.

[–] redcloud842001 15 years ago

funnier than 'young frankenstein'

[–] joenscott 7 years ago

"funnier than 'young frankenstein'" Yes, it is, today (if you get dry, dark humor). Young Frankenstein hasn't aged well, for some reason, but it was very funny then.

[–] it001k0306 17 years ago

I have recently watched this again and agree that it is better than I had thought. Also agree that much of the cast is good BUT the monster is poor, poor, poor and whichever way you look at it Bates is no substitute for Peter Cushing. Yeah, he was a likeable enough actor but I think that the script makes him look like little more than a spoilt brat. In a nutshell, he's good, so are the other actors, script is alright, monster is garbage, and NO WAY (in my opinion!) is this comparable to the other films in the series. Peter Cushing is too authoritative in the role for him to be bettered and most of the other scripts are far stronger.

[–] jquirk-1 17 years ago

I agree with you on the scripts. "Curse of Frankenstein," "Revenge of Frankenstein," and probably "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" had better scripts than "Horror of Frankenstein." The weakness of "Horror ..." is that the script makes it appear as if the doctor is able to bring things to life using mere electricity. It seemed there was more to this task in the other films.

But where "Horror ..." is superior, in my opinion, is with the way the story flows, and with the no-holds-barred evil displayed by the doctor. The movie was well-edited, unlike the other films which I felt had many plot holes, especially "Frankenstein Created Woman."

As I've stated before, the true monster in "Horror ..." is the doctor. The monster is a mindless, murderous brute. But really it's no different than Christopher Lee's monster in "Curse of ..." Lee's monster just walked around and killed, and was nothing more than a mindless abomination. The creature in "Revenge of ..." was likeable but lame. The creature in "Evil of Frankenstein," again, seemed mindless and lacked personality.

The creations in the other films "... Created Woman," "... Must Be Destroyed" and "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell" didn't even feel like Frankenstein monsters.

And you are probably right that Cushing was a better Dr. Frankenstein. But he was never as evil and cold-hearted as the Ralph Bates version. Cushing's doctor would never kill his best friend. Sure, Cushing's Frankenstein would push an old man off a balcony, call it an accident, just to get his brain. And sure, Cushing's Frankenstein would chop off the head of an unsuspecting passerby just to further his experiments. But he never killed his friends. Bates' version did, not only killing his best friend via electrocution, but also dumping the grave robber into a vat of acid for no good reason. Bates' version also killed his own father.

And what is most disturbing about this film is, unlike the Cushing movies, the doctor apparently gets away with everything in the end.

These ruthless elements are what make this one scarier and, in my opinion, stand above the Cushing films.

[–] it001k0306 17 years ago

Still not convinced. Cushing could be ruthless. Raping a colleague just to keep her in order? Killing her because she let the creature go? All happened in 'Must Be Destroyed'. What about 'Monster From hell'? Planning to breed the monster with the angelic Angel? Anyway, my belief is that the Cushing films are better because of the grey areas, because he's a more complex figure. Probably, you've helped me to define my overall problem with 'Horror'. Just too basic, black and white. Less depth.
Healthy to have differing opinions, though.

[–] freudified_n_funkified 17 years ago

It's not all that fair to compare this more or less throwaway film with the brilliant and straight faced Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. For what it is, I thought Horror of Frankenstein worked very well. I just double featured it with the also-Sangster-directed Lust for a Vampire (he's not very fond of either movie apparently) and I really wish he directed more - he had a great eye for this kind of thing and I agree with the poster who commented about the flow, Sangster could pace a movie. As I watched Horror... I just found myself enjoying every scene and responding to Bates' characterization and the humor. It's a very fun movie, even if the monster is indeed weak.

[–] jquirk-1 16 years ago

One of my favorite parts is when Bates is having dinner with Elizabeth and her father, and a number suddenly appears on the father's forehead. This film had a lot of dark humor, and Bates was able to pull it off with a straight face. And Dr. Frankenstein was never more of a sociopath extraordinaire as he was in this film.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wuchak (8104) 6 months ago

Cushing was a better Dr. Frankenstein. But he was never as evil and cold-hearted as the Ralph Bates version. Cushing's doctor would never kill his best friend. Sure, Cushing's Frankenstein would push an old man off a balcony, call it an accident, just to get his brain. And sure, Cushing's Frankenstein would chop off the head of an unsuspecting passerby just to further his experiments. But he never killed his friends. Bates' version did, not only killing his best friend via electrocution, but also dumping the grave robber into a vat of acid for no good reason. Bates' version also killed his own father.

Your points about the older Victor Frankenstein in the Hammer series (Cushing) show that the Baron was obsessed with his work and would do whatever it took to continue it, including murder. He even justified raping his young assistant's wife in "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" presumably on the grounds that his carnal needs required to be met so he could concentrate on his life's mission, which was tantamount in his pompous mind.

The younger Victor Frankenstein, performed by Bates, is the foundation for Cushing's older version of the character. The only reason he kills his father and best friend is because they were going to prevent him from carrying out his work. His father refused to allow Victor to go to university, over his dead body, while his friend threatened to expose his activities. As such, Victor felt he had no recourse but to eliminate them.

So, generally speaking, there's no contradiction in Bate's younger version of the character and Cushing's older version.

[–] vesa_karppinen-1 16 years ago

I finally got a chance to see this film after purchasing The Ultimate Hammer Box and I must say I was pleasantly suprised. It wasn't bad at all! Granted, it isn't near The Curse of Frankenstein or Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed but it was good fun. And Kate O'Mara was truly a delight to ones eyes.

[–] Sdean55 16 years ago

It's a riot !! great mix of humour and horror.
" top of the world ma "

[–] Tin Man-5 16 years ago

I liked it up to the point that the Monster was created, with all its morose humor and subtle touches and over-the-top doctor. But when Prowse walks in and starts wandering around without any real context other than, well, he's the monster, I felt the film lost its edge. Loved the underplayed ending though.

[–] mbuck001 16 years ago

I agree that this film isn't bad, but it is the worst Hammer Frankenstein film made. There is absolutely no depth to any of the characters and it was very unevenly paced. I have to say it was a disappointment. I did enjoy the humor and the actors were good, but the script really lacked.

Saucers? You mean the kind from up there?

[–] Squonkamatic 16 years ago

By the time this movie was made Hammer's gothic schtick had become almost a parody in itself, so instead of making another "straight" Frankenstein film, Jimmy Sangster (who had a hand in making most of the others before this) decided to divert from formula and directly address how RIDICULOUS this whole concept is in the first place. Horror movies themselves are for the most part absurd once you get down to brass tacks, and the blending of outright comedy with "horror" themes dates back to the 1930s at least. It's not a slapstick approach though, more a form of wry satire with the tone about two settings shy of being a farce. If you want a gothic monster movie stick with the previous films. This is their post modernist statement on how it felt to wake up one morning and realize that things were getting a bit silly around the studio. The line where Ralph Bates says that "Tomorrow we'll start with a new project, something safe. Like splitting the atom." should tell anyone all they need to know about THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN's intentions.

[–] onnanob2 15 years ago

No, it's not a bad movie. It was enjoyable and it entertained.

I easily understand Hammer was trying to breathe new life into the Frankenstein story, but they're all pretty much the same when you get down to it: Frankenstein gets body parts. Frankenstein assembles body parts. Body comes to life with disastrous results. Murder and mayhem follow.

Sure, there were variations in the stories, but the basics were repeated over and over. It can get tiring, and I think that might be one of the reasons why this film isn't so well received.

[–] Gong5 14 years ago

Reminds one a lot of Ripley, who of course was marred on film by two very mediocre actors, that dreadful bore Malcovich and the very unremarkable Matt Damon. Bates is terrific though. I don't usually like old films, nor horror ones -esp. the latter- but this one had some excellent moments.

But it's too intelligent (not per se but relatively speaking) for the average horror fan or the genre itself.

Let me quote again this great line from the film. Victor tells his best friend right before killing him that he's come to his senses and he's been conveinced that he should abandon his horrific experiments and instead they should focus on something else, he tells him: ""Tomorrow we'll start with a new project, something safe. Like splitting the atom." And that line delivered with such a dry wit from Bates. Gotta love the great irony in play.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 6 months ago

Reminds one a lot of Ripley, who of course was marred on film by two very mediocre actors, that dreadful bore Malcovich and the very unremarkable Matt Damon.

You mean "Rounders"?

[–] Wombstar 12 years ago

It was a bit bland, some possitives but not many.. maybe not comedic enough.
I can see why they dumbed the re-boot and returnd to the Peter Cushing films with '...Monster from hell'

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ElectricWarlock 10 years ago

I just finished watching it and I don't think it's bad either. Different than the other films in the series for sure, but that doesn't mean it's bad. I think most people just hate change. They like when things are formulaic so if any sequel dares to do anything different than what they're used to it gets a bad reputation by default.

Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn!

[–] joenscott 7 years ago

It's a dry comedy that people who've seen a lot of horror especially can get. I think there are two kinds of horror fans, those who think if Jimmy Sangster doesn't take their genuine love of genuine horror seriously (and, well, he didn't), then that's an insult to them, and those who don't mind him messing around for fun, and doing that well.