Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Simon Alford I really enjoy "The Horror of Frankenstein." Despite the consensus on this forum (and, sadly, on nearly all movie sites), this is a rewarding and entertaining retelling of the Frankenstein tale. By 1970, Hammer had pretty much mined Shelley's story, releasing films in this series every few years. The Hammerheads were looking for a new direction and "The Horror of..." was born. They enlisted the author of the screenplay for their original Frankenstein film (The Curse of...) to helm this production. Instead of rehashing old ground, they decided to make the Doctor a cruel determined man (who is no doubt more frightening than the monster) and add a healthy dose of black humour to the proceedings. As far as I can tell, the detractors of the film find the addition of the humour to be the deal-breaker. Added to that, the film revels in an almost campy atmosphere. This may be a surprise to those who vehemently disregard the film but the atmosphere created is deliberate. Sure, it's not like the other Hammer Frankenstein film, it's a new direction.What's not to like about Dennis Price as the grave robber? Who could complain about the beautiful Kate O'Mara? (Or her ample cleavage, continually on display.) Perhaps I like the film because it was one of the first horror movies I saw in a cinema (doubled with "Scars of Dracula" no less!). Maybe I just like horror movies. It could be for any of those reasons but I keep coming back to it every few years because just the look of Hammer turns me on. If you watch in the spirit in which it is presented, I think you too will have an old-fashioned good time.

TheLittleSongbird The Horror of Frankenstein definitely could have been much better and is rather disappointing compared to how good most Hammer horrors are and the standard of most of the previous Frankenstein entries. But to me it was not as bad as was led to believe.The Horror of Frankenstein does have some things going for it. It's very atmospherically photographed and has equally sumptuous costume and set design and nice shadowy lighting. Malcolm Williamson's haunting score compliments the film's mood most effectively and there are some good performances here. Ralph Bates is particularly notable, okay he's nowhere near as good as Peter Cushing in the role(who I consider the definitive Frankenstein)- but that's a big ask- and he overplays just a little in places but it was interesting to see a Frankenstein with no redeeming qualities; Bates does a great job commanding the screen and attacks the role with gusto. Kate O'Mara and Bernard Archard are equally great and Veronica Carlson is truly entrancing in a very eye-candy-like role but Carlson does give more than that despite not been given as much as she ought to have done. Dennis Price is a lot of cheery fun as a grave robber.The Horror of Frankenstein has a lot of problems though, the two big problems for me being the script and the Monster. The film is very heavy on dialogue but also lacking in action, there are a couple of nice scenes here and there but a lot of the film has some pedestrian storytelling that lacked suspense and freshness. It's not a bad thing if a film takes time to set things up, but The Horror of Frankenstein spends too long a time doing so. Things could have been better explained too, like why Frankenstein needed so many body parts for one body. The script sadly doesn't work, it is peppered with humour but it's humour that verges on juvenile and often misplaced while the rest of the script could have with some trimming down, there's a fair bit of froth that adds little. Credit is due for not being contradictory or continuity-error-ridden like The Evil of Frankenstein was, but that film at least had Peter Cushing and a better ending. It is a further shame that the Monster here is a joke. The make-up is the cheapest-looking of all the Frankenstein outings, its only distinction being the square head, while David Prowse's performance is disappointingly feeble in a role he should have been perfect for(disappointingly because he went on to play Darth Vader, one of cinema's most iconic villains) being completely lacking in menace and it's difficult to feel a shred of sympathy towards him. Instead he comes across as like the most robotic of robots. Sangster's direction is plodding in a way most of his scripts for Hammer are anything but(the nuances and wit his script have don't translate in his direction), the killings in execution are more unintentionally silly than thrilling and the ending is one big anti-climax.Overall, an underwhelming Frankenstein film and one of Hammer's weakest but not that bad. 5/10 Bethany Cox

ShadeGrenade Jimmy Sangster, Hammer's best screenwriter, sadly passed on a short time ago. 'Horror Of Frankenstein' ( 1970 ) was his first film as director, and not one I imagine he was particularly proud of. We are used nowadays to movie franchises getting rebooted almost as soon as they are established - it saves Hollywood from having to do anything drastic such as coming up with new ideas, and there is a gullible audience waiting to lap up the new version so they can go on internet movie forums afterwards and give the old one a right kicking. It may surprise some to learn that 'rebooting' is not a new concept. After five films starring the excellent Peter Cushing as 'Baron Victor Frankenstein', Hammer decided to 'freshen up' the series by bringing in a younger actor - the handsome, charismatic Ralph Bates. Furthermore, the script for 'Horror' would follow the plot of 'Curse of Frankenstein' - the first film in the series - closely. But the Cushing version was a misguided genius who only wanted to help Mankind, whereas Bates' Victor is a caddish swine out for personal glory, who seduces maids and electrocutes his best friend Wilhelm ( Graham James ).The first draft was by Jeremy Burnham, an actor who wrote some fine episodes of 'The Avengers'. Sangster rewrote it but with no improvement noticeable. The idea seems to have been to make a Frankenstein film in tune with the sensibilities of the late '60's/early '70's, hence Victor's sleeping around and cynical 'get-rich-and-famous-quick' attitudes, but the end result does not gel. Despite the title, there is little horror. The creature Victor stitches together is a lumbering, bald-headed giant ( Dave Prowse, the future 'Darth Vader' from 'Star Wars' ) who looks as though he has wandered out of an episode of 'Eastenders'. Victor eventually uses him as a killing machine. No attempt whatever is made to give the creature a character, as happened in James Whale's celebrated 1931 version with Boris Karloff. Frankly, 'Oddbod' from 'Carry On Screaming' ( 1966 ) was scarier.Some good actors - Jon Finch, James Cossins, Bernard Archard, and Dennis Price ( as a grave robber ) - are around, but aren't able to save the picture. It is never sure what it wants to be - a comedy or a straight horror flick. In the former department, a severed arm makes a V-sign when Victor puts electricity through it, and the final scene sees the creature's boots bobbing to the surface of a vat of acid ( how could that happen? ). Not only are these the best jokes in the film, they're the only jokes in the film! The main reasons to see this are Kate O'Mara and Veronica Carlson, whose heaving bosoms prevented me from nodding off. Carlson had appeared in the most recent Hammer Frankenstein - the vastly superior 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed' ( 1969 ). O'Mara is very good as the sexy, blackmailing maid 'Alys'.'Horror' flopped to no-one's great surprise, and Cushing was brought back three years later to star in the Terence Fisher-directed 'Frankenstein & The Monster From Hell' which was better, but not much. Prowse returned to play a different monster. Sangster made one more film - 'Lust For A Vampire' - which showcased the talents of my favourite Swedish actress of the time - Yutte Stensgaard. After that, it was back to the typewriter for him.

KenLiversausage There are only two even half-good reasons to watch this limp, atypical version of the Frankenstein story. And both of them can be found inside – just – Kate O'Mara's blouse.It's rubbish, pure and simple, all the more surprisingly so considering a) it was written and directed by Jimmy Sangster, one of the half dozen most important names in the history of Hammer films; and b) it has an absolutely top-notch cast: as well as Ralph Bates (who Hammer were grooming to take over Peter Cushing's mantle; never happened) we get uber-Hammer babe Veronica Carlson, the aforementioned Miss O'Mara – as gorgeous, pouting and shapely a starlet as ever graced a Hammer flick (she can't act for toffee, but who cares?) – the criminally underrated and underused Jon Finch, and the brilliant Dennis Price.Sangster's screenplay is weak. It tries hard to be funny, but succeeds only in being puerile. And his direction is workmanlike at best. There is little real action, certainly not the sort of action you expect from a Hammer Frankenstein movie. The gore quotient is minimal, and the naked bazooka count zero – odd, considering female nudity was Hammer's big USP in the early 70s, and Sangster's only other directorial effort for Hammer, Lust for a Vampire, was replete with a multitude of heaving bosoms. (Apparently Kate O'Mara refused to appear topless, which makes you wonder how she got the part in the first place, but never mind.) Most of the DIY brain surgery takes place off screen, and the monster, played by muscleman and soon-to-be Darth Vader David Prowse, is about as frightening as an ice cream cone. He's supposedly been stitched together in the usual way, from assorted local unfortunates, but for some reason he has the body of a Greek god. The only concession to his patchwork creation is stitching scars that look like they've been drawn on with lipstick.The plot isn't worth outlining – Sangster clearly didn't spend much time on it, so neither will I – and there are some annoyingly stupid bits of business which mean that the film doesn't work, even on its own jokey level. (For example, the monster isn't strong enough to pull his shackles out of the wall, but he makes matchwood out of a solid oak door.) Unless you're a Hammer completist I'd give this one a miss. If it does happen to come your way, as it did mine, on satellite TV late one night, try and stay awake for Kate O'Mara's appearance in a see-through nightie, then switch off. (She gets killed off soon after anyway. Probably died of shame.)