Don't listen to the negative reviews

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This is a Comedy and a parody and still it isn't silly. That's what all Frankensteins Before this one were with the obvious exception of The Bride of Frankenstein but that's Another story. The scientific part of at all is of course ridiculous but that is what to be expected and the film makes no excuses. The actors play it all in the best Hammer manor, which is as if it all was Shakespeare or worse. Peter Cushing is not among the actors, which is good in this case because then the film would have taken off in totally different direction and lost most of its humour.

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.

The only time Hammer presented a Frankenstein-Dracula double bill was in 1970, with "The Horror of Frankenstein" shot back-to-back with "Scars of Dracula." Neither was an artistic triumph, and both also slipped out together on the drive-in circuit in the US, courtesy of the short lived distribution outfit American Continental Films Inc.(their meagre five picture existence including one other Hammer title, 1970's "Lust for a Vampire"). These two films also began the downward spiral of Hammer Films, as American financing ended with their last production, "The Vampire Lovers" (done with American International Pictures). All future Hammers would find difficulty getting distributed outside Britain, and many would quickly find their way to American TV screens. "The Horror of Frankenstein" is an aberration in the Hammer series, the only entry without the beloved Peter Cushing in the starring role, although he did pose with the cast on the set for publicity purposes. Longtime Hammer screenwriter Jimmy Sangster originally passed on Jeremy Burnham's outline of the script, but once he was offered the chance to direct, he leapt at the opportunity. Groomed for horror stardom, Ralph Bates was the only choice for Victor Frankenstein, and this certainly qualifies as his finest hour at Hammer. Sangster went on to direct twice more for Hammer (1970's "Lust for a Vampire" and 1972's "Fear in the Night"), accounting for three of Bates' five Hammer titles, and they obviously worked well together. Critics at the time were somewhat positive in their reviews of this film, rather more negative toward "Scars of Dracula," and both have been quite maligned ever since. It's true that HORROR isn't up to the standards of the Peter Cushing features, but it's still superior to at least 1964's "The Evil of Frankenstein," the only other Hammer entry not directed by Terence Fisher (Freddie Francis did much better with 1968's "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave"). While Cushing tried hard to bring life (pun intended) to the Universal-imitation antics scripted by John Elder (producer Anthony Hinds) for EVIL, HORROR is a fairly straightforward remake of Hammer's own "The Curse of Frankenstein," the one that started it all in 1957. This time, the proceedings are done tongue-in-cheek, which Sangster now admits was a mistake, but I don't see how else they could have remade it, short of out and out comedy ("Andy Warhol's Frankenstein"). This way, viewers have the option of taking the film seriously, with the cast and crew sharing their amusement with the audience. The familiar plot is given life by the new interpretation, with Ralph Bates' Frankenstein starting out as a randy student interested in anatomy, mostly female, abruptly terminating his education to return to his ancestral castle to begin work on his own personal experiments. Right off the bat, we are presented with a Frankenstein that differs from Cushing's, in that this one performs his duties in the most self-serving manner possible, first arranging the 'accidental' death of his wealthy father, moving on to electrocuting his best friend when the fear of exposure prompts him to act quickly, and when his Monster escapes and commits murder, does not hesitate to put the blame on another trusted friend, engaged simply as a cook. The audience is kept at arms length from Bates, whose antics do not endear him to us, despite Sangster's attempts to soften things up with low key humor, acceptable to a point. He becomes more unlikable as the film goes on, especially when taunting Jon Finch's inspector, investigating the monster's mayhem. Veronica Carlson has little to do as Frankenstein's paramour, who isn't even allowed the privilege of becoming engaged to the man she loves, while luscious Kate O'Mara and her Irish accent steals every scene as the housekeeper/lover with the impressive cleavage. Dennis Price is great fun as the elderly grave robber whose pregnant wife (Joan Rice) does all the digging (Price would go on to play Dr. Frankenstein in two Jesus Franco turkeys). As The Monster, Dave Prowse is allowed to display his imposing weightlifter's physique wrapped in bandages, but later admitted he received little direction from Sangster. Given the square-headed, imitation Karloff look first employed for Kiwi Kingston in EVIL, Prowse hasn't much to work with, brought to life just 30 minutes before the film's conclusion. He periodically escapes and actually kills in obeying his creator's bidding, a plot device never employed by Cushing's Frankenstein, bringing back shades of Karloff and Lugosi working in tandem in 1939's "Son of Frankenstein." Prowse is allowed little in the way of personality, and would benefit from his later Monster in 1973's "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell," this time opposite the always endearing Cushing. Yes, Ralph Bates suffers in comparison, but that's the way it was written, and quite understandable that no attempt was made to continue the series with him, despite the ending leaving him free to continue his work (at least Cushing was sentenced to hang). No classic, but not a bad film, "The Horror of Frankenstein" aired three times on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater ("Scars of Dracula," "Lust for a Vampire" aka "To Love a Vampire," and "Fear in the Night" were also shown at other times)- Nov 30 1974 (followed by 1966's "Return from the Past" aka "Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horror"), July 10 1976 (following 1967's "King Kong Escapes"), and Dec 9 1978 (followed by 1965's "Planet on the Prowl" aka "War Between the Planets").

I want to say, up front, that this is a fine Gothic Frankenstein film. It's actually based upon a fairly straightforward Frankenstein theme, (semi-mad doctor wants to make monster, the brain is damaged, and the monster kills people), but Dr. Victor Frankenstein (very credibly played by Ralph Bates) comes off as a classic, if cultured, psychopath. He cares naught in the slightest about the sanctity of human life, as long as his vision of creating a man (from used parts) is fulfilled.Here are the numerous characteristics (events) which generate most viewers' dark paradigm of this particular Dr. Victor Frankenstein: 1. He has the sex drive of Don Juan and Rasputin combined and any consequences of his amorous advances do not concern him in the least. After impregnating his University Dean's daughter, he just drops her like a hot rock, never giving her a further thought. He also demands double-duty from his lovers... sex slave on demand and housekeeper routinely.2. He really savours killing people (you can tell by the smirk on his face as he does so), including his father, a highwayman (whom he also decapitates), his best friend and assistant, the provider of his corpses, and a local professor (via poison). He even kills an associate's pet tortoise with a smile! 3. He much enjoys setting his monster to killing: the corpse-snatcher's greedy wife, a lover and, a woodsman who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.4. He's really into personal intimidation of those who are supposed to be his superiors while he is a medical student and later on too.This 1970 British story goes like this: Dr. Frankenstein decides (as a student) that his big goal will be to create a man (basically from corpse parts) so he takes on a pal whom eventually becomes more and more skittish as the experiments with body parts become more and more audacious and heinous. People who get into the way of the young Doctor's plans are snuffed without a second thought. So, what I'm saying here is that there are no huge surprises.True to the Hammer philosophy, this film is not hair-raising scary like, say, "The Exorcist," "Halloween," or Hitchcock's "Psycho," albeit it's a much darker film than all the other Hammer Frankenstein flicks. This is clearly due to the fact that this movie was directed by Hammer's fair-haired horror writer, Jimmy Sangster, who had clearly been drooling to actually direct one of these films. It's really all just quite entertaining.There are even intermittent moments of sly humor to be found throughout the movie. At one point, a buxom lass of the Doctor's former acquaintance is practically displaying her mammalian wares for him and he wryly comments, "You've gained weight in a couple of places." Nicely put! The monster is a bit of an enigma. Played by David Prowse, his face is left pretty much unchanged, make-up-wise -- there is just the add-on to the top of the head. The monster thus looks a lot like one of my larger neighbors. He's not a very shrewd monster as the brain, of course, was damaged somewhat by the corpse-snatcher having dropped it. Just your basic killer who generally follows his master's instructions in order to get fed. This particular brain, by the way, was a sort of steel-blue in its hue and I thought that was a little strange.The filmscore is superb, composed and conveyed by Malcolm Williamson. It embraces that late 60s atmospheric ambiance which goes along so well with period monster flicks, akin to the themes of the great Les Baxter. The film is shot in letterbox and the sets and locations are outstanding. The long shot of the ominous castle is simply timeless. The color saturation is of equal high-quality.In summary, we do somewhat miss the great Peter Cushing in this Hammer entry; however, it's a fine performance by Ralph Bates and his supporting cast and I think, overall, is one of the best Frankenstein films that I've seen anywhere.