- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
The Frankenstein Question
Love is blind- but should it be? What reason is there for mortal man to create 'life'? If God created man in His image, what form would the man-made life assume? If man-made life rejected its creator, what then- or would it be programmed to worship & serve its creator? What manner of man can shoulder this responsibility? Does man as creator possess such love for his creature that he (man) could sacrifice himself to save it from failure? Might man-made life become another minority against which discrimination is prohibited? Do we refer to the animated flesh as 'humananly challenged' rather than monster? What did either movie version or the novel itself (as grotesquely fascinating as they are) hope to create?!
curse of frankenstein
- kevin sellers
I disagree with the reviewers below who say this 1957 remake is as good or better than the 1930s originals from director James Whale. As evidence let's discuss the use of the old, blind guy in both this film and "Bride Of Frankenstein." In Whale's masterpiece we have the monster bonding with the one person who does not, because he cannot, see him as a grotesque. This both humanizes the monster and critically comments on the society around him, thus giving the earlier film greater depth and resonance. In Terence Fisher's Hammer remake the old, blind guy is simply one more of the monster's victims and his death has very little dramatic or emotional impact. Also militating against greatness is the too garish color of the 1957 remake as opposed to the properly moody, light and shadow cinematography of the black and white originals. However, just because "Curse Of Frankenstein" is not as good as "Bride Of Frankenstein" does not mean that it should be consigned to the charnel house of horror flics. Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are certainly equal to, if not better, than Colin Clive and Boris Karloff (although no one in the 1957 movie even comes close to Ernest Thesiger of "Bride" fame for pure, unadulterated vileness) and Terence Fisher's direction is well paced and properly low key. So let's give it a solid B. P.S. Fantastic makeup job on Christopher Lee's monster. Kind of a dead fish, ghastly white (or "toad belly white" as Huck Finn said about his dad's creepy skin.) Bravo makeup man, Phil Leakey! Guy shoulda gotten an Oscar nomination.
Two Grat Actors
The start of the horror films of Hammer.All actors are the best here.As good as Karloff's monster/Universal.
Great Frankenstein flick,a class act all the way.Features such greats as Cushing,Lee,Urquhart
Great take on Mary Shelly's classic novel
- Dan Grissom
Hammer films started a franchise with this outstanding color re-telling of Mary Shelly's 'Frankenstein'. Of course it does not follow the novel but it also does not follow Universal's famous 1931 version starring Boris Karloff. I remember watching this with my son a few years back and he says, 'Dad, these people are good actors!' That pretty much sums it up. Four stars.
Good Frankenstein movie
Great pairing of Cushing and Lee,can see how they probably enjoyed working together.Thoroughly enjoyed this outing