Wonderfully offbeat film!

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

The Horror of Frankenstein 1970 Jimmy Sangster 2/100Quick review: Boring, inconsequential, poor, unimaginative and derivative Frankenstein detritus with nice sets and decent direction. Another film about the rise and fall of Dr Frankenstein but this time Frankenstein is totally evil. Ralph Bates gives an embarrassingly unimpressive performance in this Hammer effort. His is an amateurish attempt at a devilish baron, one you might expect from a child. David Prowse gives one of the worst portrayals of Shelley's monster that I can recall seeing. He casually walks about as though he's in the gym and follows direction like a robot; failing to drum up fear, suspense or intrigue. I've no idea how many films have been made about Dr Frankenstein and his monster and that's a big part of the problem I had with this film. By the time it was produced Hammer alone had already made 5 Frankenstein films and had a very good Victor Frankenstein in Peter Cushing. "The Horror of Frankenstein" relies on the existence of previous films and the original novel to get by. It doesn't bring anything new to the story and its attempts at being a little different are nugatory. "The Horror of Frankenstein" is pure mullock.

I recognised a name or two in the cast, then I saw that it was a Hammer Horror film, so I thought it was worth at least a try. Basically a younger Victor Frankenstein (Ralph Bates, replacing Peter Cushing) is the misunderstood scientist, who is determined not just to study life and the human body, but make it. With the help of some grave robbers and his anatomical knowledge, he wants to create what could be the perfect human specimen. Of course the Monster (David Prowse, the man inside Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, replacing Sir Christopher Lee) created is an aggressive thing that obeys a few orders to get meaty rewards, but ultimately it is not a perfect specimen. Also starring Kate O'Mara as Alys, Graham James as Wilhelm Kassner, Veronica Carlson as Elizabeth Heiss and Bernard Archard as Prof. Heiss. This is supposed to be a remake to Hammer's original Curse of Frankenstein, it is not counted as the sixth in the series because of this fact, and because it is a little ridiculous. Adequate!

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.)

The Horror of Frankenstein is the sixth and second to last entry in their Frankenstein cycle. Many, and I mean many, revile this film as nothing to do with the other films in content, style, and acting. It is the only film that does not star Peter Cushing as the evil Baron Frankenstein. That in itself is a huge obstacle to get past. I love Cushing in everything he does. He personifies the character of the Baron with his cold, heartless, calculating mind. Cushing with Terence Fisher, the director in most of those previous Frankenstein films, always made the Baron the focal point of the film rather than the monster. This is a huge departure from the Universal cycle. Cushing's creation stayed very much in character for all of the films until the last one Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. In that film Cushing moves from that cold, heartless baron with some ethics to a womanizing, truly evil and terrifying man bent of personal pleasure as much as creating life. That film is not one of my favorites in the Hammer cycle; however, The Horror of Frankenstein takes that Victor Frankenstein and runs amuck with it in this version written and directed by the very, very talented Jimmy Sangster. Ralph Bates is that very same Baron only younger, and yes this is really just a reworking of The Curse of Frankenstein with some additional violence, a younger cast, some more graphic effects, and plenty and plenty of glorious cleavage. Bates is rather good in this role as a weaselly Baron who cares only about himself and how individuals can please him, and when they no longer can they no longer have value in his eyes except for whatever value he can place on pieces of their anatomy. Sangster defines his characters fairly well, and I enjoyed the story and the acting and the film much, much more than I had thought upon hearing so much negativity for the film. Is it as good as The Curse of Frankenstein? No way. The Revenge of Frankenstein? Nope. Any of the others - probably not though I found it more entertaining if not as good as Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed AND Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell. Sangster's direction is very typically Hammeresque and the acting follows suit with some great character performances by Bernard Archard as the brain-giver and Dennis Price chewing up scenery as the resurectionist. His lines are worth seeing almost by themselves. And how about Veronica Carlson and Kate O'Mara? I cannot think of four - I mean 2 - things that are more captivating in the film. The Horror of Frankenstin is not groundbreaking at all, and it does marshal in the beginning of the new Hammer direction of sex and bloodier violence soon to hit the screens with the likes of The Vampire Lovers and what followed. but it is not over-the-top at this point and is much better than some would have you believe. The apparatus for acid used throughout the film was very intriguing and a wonderful set piece.