Rating: 
Summary: Great horror movie
Review: This is an excellent, well-made horror movie. Unlike the Universal Frankenstein films, the Hammer versions focus more attention on Dr. Frankenstein than the monster. Peter Cushing is perfect as the fanatical doctor. "Curse of Frankenstein" has a great cast and a suspenseful storyline. The ending is especially fast-paced. Top-notch. I keep waiting for this and "Horror of Dracula" to be released to DVD. It's overdue.
Rating:
Summary: The First of a long line of great movies.
Review: This is the first and one of the best of the Hammer horror films.
Ive always liked the Hammer version better than the Universal movie and the reason is, Peter Cushing. No one will ever equal his portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein. Im sure everyone knows the story of the Frankenstein monster, so there is no need for details of the film, just let it be said that this, in my opinion, is the best version.
Rating:
Summary: Flamboyant
Review: This is the first of Hammer's flamboyant gothic horror-movies, initiating a rich Renaissance for the genre. It's also the first get-together for the quartet who became responsible for the highlights: Peter Cushing is superb as the scientist for whom the moral implications of his unorthodox work are mediaeval dogmatics. When his assistent implies that his experiment is "evil", his reply is: "I wish you would stop saying that". Christopher Lee is the pathetic homunculus, having nothing in common with Karloff or Shelleys romantic creature, rather a tottering retard, failing to understand his surroundings. Jimmy Sangsters screen-play is witty and literary and Terence Fishers direction is simply marvellous, lavish and restrained at the same time. Like most of the movies with "Frankestein" in the title it has very little to do with the novel, but it's a great movie in its own rights, a minor masterpiece. The Warner-DVD do fair justice to the glowing colours, that was one of the trademarks of Hammer's horror-movies.
Rating:
Summary: The definitive Frankenstein, the definitive Hammer
Review: This is, in my opinion, the finest Frankenstein film--and the finest Hammer film--of all. This is the only film to capture the shocking callousness, self-absorption, even evil that Mary Shelley wrote into Victor Frankenstein. And, unlike many film versions of that classic novel, this film is, indeed, focused squarely on Frankenstein rather than on his creation.In terms of subsequent influence, Hammer's later Horror of Dracula is the more notable film. Curse of Frankenstein, however, is simply a *better* film, in terms of script, cinematography, and (with the exception of Peter Cushing, who excells in both movies) acting. If you're a Frankenstein buff, a horror movie fan, or simply one who appreciates popular art at its finest, go with Curse of Frankenstein. You'll not be sorry.
Rating: 
Summary: Long and Drawn out.
Review: This movie is the worst of any frankenstein movie. Poor acting and the focus on the doctor rather than the monster is a big let down.How anyone could say this shit outshines Universals classic Frankenstein is beyond me.Universal knew what they were doing when they blocked hammer studios from coping thier masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: Brith of Frankenstein
Review: This was the breakthrough movie for Hammer studios and caused a storm of outrage among the critics. Peter Cushing is the Baron and he so completely absorbed in his project where he thinks of nothing else. Christopher Lee has the role of the creature. Because the creature is mute, Lee was able to convey emotional turmoil through physical gestures. In Hammer's version of Frankenstein it is the Baron that is kept alive from film to film in contrast to Universal's version where the creature was kept alive through the series. This was the 1st British horror movie in color. The next film in the series is The Revenge of Frankenstein.
Rating:
Summary: The Gutsy Film That Started a Series!
Review: Universal's success with the B&W Frankenstein (1933) may have inspired Hammer to bring the legend up-to-date in the 50's. Like the Universal flick, this one has little to do with the novel by Mary Shelly. Fans of the Universal Frankenstein series may not like what Hammer did, but their twist on the legend is not without merit. If nothing else, it gave us the marvelous Peter Cushing as the heartless and malevolent Baron Frankenstein, a strong character role that lasted through many films and almost defined Cushing's career. And Hammer also gave the legend glorious, gory color, beautiful period costumes and sets, voluptuous women to gawk at (and who often are in the gravest danger!) and lots and lots of body parts in various stages of decay, providing relief from the then current trend of atomic mutations and gigantic monsters wiping out entire cities. Where the Universal Frankenstein series focused on the monster (who appeared in the same makeup film after film), the Hammer series focused on the not-so-good doctor (actually, Baron) in his endless quest to 'make a friend'. Cushing's Baron is always aristocratic, remote and cold, interested only in creating life, even if he has to kill everyone around him to do it! Like Colin Clive's mad doctor (Universal), Cushing's mad Baron has little or no compassion for his creature once it is alive (in that, both movies are faithful to the novel). The Baron is indifferent and aloof, and relies far to much on lobotomy to correct bad behavior in his offspring. Can we say, Malpractice? But, he is like any good villain, delightful to watch as he goes to greater and greater extremes to succeed, only to fail more miserably each time. This guy is doomed to failure, we just don't know how he'll botch the next attempt. And his attitude is what holds us. We want to shake some sense into him, of course, and we are fascinated by his remarkable air of superiority. We can't help but watch him again and again. Christopher Lee (of Dracula fame) does his best as the monster, but has no lines and little action other than to be killed and revived over and over. Yet, with his body language and what facial expressions he can evoke through his hideous makeup, Lee does at times elevate his character above the killing machine monster the script calls for, and evokes pity as he suffers from the ruthless scalpel of the wicked Baron. There is an advantage to videotape here, because you can pause the film and focus on certain scenes, which of course, you could not do in a movie theater. Using this technique, there are several shots of Lee which are remarkable, but pass too quickly under normal play to fully appreciate. This was Lee's only role as the creature, and he is better remembered for his work as Count Dracula, also from Hammer. It is a pity that the writers did not give him a speaking part, in keeping with the novel, as Lee's wonderful speaking voice would have added much to the character. The rest of the cast serves mostly as window dressing, or a source for body parts and the occasional outbreak of moral indignation. The exception is Hazel Court as Elizabeth. She also appeared in many Hammer films, and always carried her character well. Her Elizabeth is wonderfully patient, if incredibly naieve even for a 19th century girl, and does she ever look good in period costume! By today's standards, this film may seem silly, the musical score is particularly bland and predictable, the creation scene is remarkably weak and disappointing, (what could match Univeral's all electric masterpiece anyway? Perhaps, they sensibly didn't bother to try) but it set the standard for the many Hammer Frankenstein films that followed ( which all starred Cushing as the Baron). When it opened, this movie was quite successful, and it is rarely seen today, even on classic film cable. To collectors and Hammer buffs, it is a must have, the one that started it all. This one is all guts, and little glory, but it's where Hammer's Frankenstein series started, and well worth the price, just to own a piece of history.
|
