Horror of Frankenstein (1970)

We now arrive at Hammer’s sixth Frankenstein film, and it’s the only one without Peter Cushing. (It’s said that Hammer execs wanted a younger actor to appeal to younger audiences, as Cushing was starting to get long in the tooth.) This movie takes a notably different approach than its predecessors, in that it goes more for humor than for terror. And yet, this is not a comedy; it simply a horror movie with periodic black humor. Like the other films, though, it indulges in Hammer’s growing penchant for titillation. But let’s start, as we always do, with the plot.

The Plot: Unlike most portrayals of Dr. Frankenstein, this one uses a somewhat younger actor (a thirty-year-old Ralph Bates.) (Trivia fact: Ralph Bates was the great, great nephew of Louis Pasteur. I’m not making this up.) And whereas most portrayals of Dr. Frankenstein show him to be passionate about science and generally well-meaning (if misdirected or even mad), in this movie he is self-indulgent, debauched, sociopathic, and evil. (Note that this essentially describes Peter Cushing in1969’s Revenge of Frankentein). Here, Dr. Frankenstein manages to maintain an outwardly respectable appearance, which makes him even more dangerous.

Early in the film, Dr. Victor Frankenstein arranges the death of his wealthy father so that he can receive the inheritance, which he uses to enroll at the university to get a medical degree and then to equip a laboratory. He then goes about constructing a man using body parts from (recently-expired) corpses. His project is successful, and he directs his creation to kill his enemies and anyone else who happens to be in the way. The film does not resolve happily for the creature, but Victor, while perhaps not getting what he wanted, does manage to survive the ordeal.

You’ll note that the plot generally follows that of the Curse of Frankenstein (1957). In fact, it’s said that director Jimmy Sangster reviewed the original screenplay and objected it amounted to a uninteresting retread of Curse. So he decided to give it its own unique flavor by injecting it with sex and humor.

The sex is tame by today’s standards (mainly just lots of cleavage and double entendres), but I’m sure it was daring for 1970. The humor is arch, a combination of black humor and wordplay, but it’s pretty clumsy and predictable.

The Monster: The monster in this movie looks like a cross between a skinhead and the lead singer from a 1980s boy band. The actor, David Prowse, was a bodybuilder in real life, so I imagine that’s what scored him the part in this movie.

The creature doesn’t show up until the last third of the movie. Sadly, he is one-dimensional (despite what you might think from the photo above.) He’s essentially just a killing machine. There’s no humanity, no pathos, no “misunderstood child” angle that we get from Karloff’s creature or some of Hammer’s earlier entries. We have absolutely no sympathy for this creature. And yet, I think we’re supposed to conclude that the real monster is Victor, who lies and cheats and kills everyone in his way.

The Atmosphere: It’s the usual garish production that you expect from Hammer: Lots of cleavage, blood, and off-screen dismemberment. Still, while it tries to push the envelope, it’s pretty tame by today’s standards. More than anything, it has the feeling of being gratuitous. Most of the sex and/or dismemberment scenes are entirely unnecessary to the plot.

This movie probably goes into the most graphic detail concerning the construction of the monster of any Frankenstein movie. The obtaining and assembly of body parts takes up almost the entire first hour, with technical shots of limbs being sawn off corpses and then getting stitched together into a new creature. Overall, this movie makes the same mistake as many modern horror movies, offering explicit, gory scenes instead of spooky atmosphere and unnerving situations.

General Comments: It’s a typical late 60s/early 70s horror movie, taking advantage of relaxed censorship standards and garish color film. But it hasn’t aged well at all. The humor is predictable and clumsy; the same goes for the sexual content. And the horror angle is too lurid and clunky to be scary. The Dr. Frankenstein character is too smarmy to garner any sympathy, and the creature is about as nuanced and sensitive as a wood chipper. It’s hard to care about anyone in this movie. The only segment worth watching is this little clip starting at around 1:40.

Overall, this movie has a recycled plot, no sympathetic characters, and meretricious set pieces. You can find better Frankenstein movies to watch.

Tomorrow we review an Italian movie that amounts to a Frankenstein version of a spaghetti western. Lady Frankenstein is available for free on YouTube. I guarantee you’ll love this movie, or I’ll double your money back.