I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Good movie but grossly overrated

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

This is a very scary movie. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It is one of the scariest movies I have seen. Is a remake. And it is one of the better remake I have seen. If you are looking for a really scary movie see this movie.

The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) * 1/2 (out of 4)Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates) stages his own father's murder so that he can get the family money and head off to a college where he can continue to learn his trade. Before long he is stealing dead bodies so that he can experiment with life but the creature he makes could lead to his downfall.After a number of pictures with Peter Cushing in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, Hammer decided to start the decade off going in a new direction and even the biggest fanboy will admit that the result is the worst picture they did with the subject. THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN is basically a retelling of the 1931 Universal picture as well as THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN but sadly it's a complete failure all around.There is so much wrong with this picture but you can start with the incredibly dull and lifeless screenplay that doesn't have anything going for it. I guess they wanted to present this Dr. Frankenstein to a younger crowd so the first three scenes in the movie basically has him being a know-it-all jerk and proving people wrong. These scenes, I'm guessing, were meant to be funny but they're more annoying than anything.Another major problem is that nothing new or original is done with the entire story. We get non-stop scenes of boring dialogue with characters going back on forth and discussing things that just aren't all that interesting. Even worse is the fact that the film finally gets the monster and delivers a major dud. This monster is without question one of the worst looking in the history of Frankenstein on film. You've basically got an extended head and that's it! Take a look at the red markings on his body and you'd swear someone with a crayon drew them on!So, with a boring story, a weak Frankenstein and an awful monster, what does THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN get right? Well, not too much actually but I guess you could say that it was well-filmed and the sets do look nice. Yes, that's about all that this film offers, which is too bad because Hammer really could have came into the new decade with something strong but instead they deliver a weak and old-fashioned dud.

The Horror Of Frankenstein is out of Hammer Studios and directed by Jimmy Sangster. Based around the famous characters created by Mary Shelley, the screenplay is co-written by Sangster with Jeremy Burnham. It stars Ralph Bates, Kate O'Mara, Veronica Carlson, Dennis Price, Graham James & David Prowse.After a dastardly deed sees him inherit the family estate, Victor Frankenstein continues with his anatomy experiments...Originally released as part of a double bill with Scars Of Dracula, The Horror Of Frankenstein saw Hammer Studios take a different approach with the titular monster. Gone was Peter Cushing, who in a publicity shoot was seen "handing over the reins" to the next generation, and in came a more comedic and talky take that takes in the permissive society and the British Welfare State! Sangster's movie should be viewed as a comedy with horror elements, it's clear from the outset that the makers here have tongue firmly in cheek. What else can you derive from a film that has a dismembered hand flicking the V's? Or a casual observation that Kate O'Mara has gained weight in the breast department? I kid you not, and it is damn funny.The most interesting thing about the film is the young Frankenstein himself, perfectly essayed as being a dandy egotist by Bates. He is in fact the villain of the piece. Here is a man who kills innocents with single minded glee, just so he can create life; deliciously bonkers really. The sexiness comes from O'Mara and Carlson who seem to have entered a "who has got the biggest cleavage contest", while Dennis Price of Ealing fame is wonderfully colourful as a grave robber happy to let his wife dig the graves! Yes it's a wacky movie alright. Even the monster, played by future Darth Vader David Prowse, seems to be in on the joke. Throw him a doggy chew and he'll do anything for you. I think the creature was more irked about having to wear a diaper more than anything else.Sets and costuming are still of a high standard, but this is a different Hammer Frankenstein. Fun and even a little devilish in its writing, it's not, however, one for the scare purists. 6/10

They definitely took a different approach with this Frankenstein-entry, that puts its emphasis more on its writing. It doesn't rely that much on its atmosphere and camp level this time or any of the other elements that are often featured in an Hammer movie. Perhaps this is disappointing for the most hardcore fans but it simply makes this a rather good movie to watch.There is no Peter Cushing this time but there is Ralph Bates, as the famous baron in his younger years. It's sort of too bad that he got on board the Hammer Studio's at a time when the genre and the studio already had reached its peak and was starting to decline already. He could been Hammer's new big man but now instead he has only played a handful of roles within Hammer movies. Also definitely too bad since he definitely was an actor who showed more potential. Perhaps he could had had the same career as Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee had.But not only the fact that Cushing is missing is what's making this movie a different one. It's a rather slow movie that takes its time to build up things and to basically re-create the character of the well known Baron Frankenstein as well. It's a bit of a different character from what Peter Cushing played and it's more of a ruthless villain this time, instead of a smart, charming, sophisticated elderly person from the higher classes of society. This Frankenstein kills to get what he wants and not just once or twice.To be honest, it didn't seemed like at first that this was going to be a very good movie. It's beginning seemed quite dull and there was very little happening within the first halve hour or so of the movie. It however later became obvious that this was simply a very effective build up toward it's better second halve in which things start to really take off. It lets its story come across as far subtle and clever than usually is the case for an Hammer movie and a Frankenstein one in particular.David Prowse also was an impressive presence within this movie, as the monster. Being a former weightlifting champion he had a great physic for the creature. He also returned to play the creature in the later and final Hammer Frankenstein movie "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell", opposite Peter Cushing this time, with who he would later also play in "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope", as Darth Vader. Funny enough this was not the first time he played the creature though. He first did so in the 1967 movie "Casino Royale", which also was his first ever film-role.For the fans of the basic classic Hammer Studio's formula, this movie might be a bit disappointing but those who are open for something new and different, this movie is a great treat!7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/