Peter Cushing is wonderful as always, playing the role of botanist Dr. Rollason. He's in the Himalayas with his wife (Maureen Connell) and assistant (Richard Wattis) to do research, when he decides to join an expedition to see if an actual Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, can be found. He will have to accept the fact that the profit minded American showman (Forrest Tucker) in charge of the expedition will have a different agenda than his own.Bigfoot and Yetis have been fodder for many films over the decades, some good, some not so good. But the desire to prove that such a creature may actually exist is fascinating nevertheless. It's given genuinely interesting and intelligent treatment by story author & screenwriter Nigel Kneale, who introduces concepts such as thought transference. He also gives his title creatures a measure of mystery (which is appreciated), sadness (the species may well be dying out), and wisdom. Note that you don't see any of the humanoid beasts until the film is almost over, and even then they're deliberately underlit.Cushing and the top billed American star Tucker (who also appeared in another British genre entry, "The Trollenberg Terror") contrast nicely, and both give solid performances. But everybody here brings their A game, including Robert Brown as marksman Ed Shelley, Michael Brill as the traumatized McNee, and Arnold Marle as the wise old Lhama."The Abominable Showman" is extremely well shot (by Arthur Grant) in widescreen "Hammerscope", capturing the majesty of some bleak but beautiful snowy & mountainous landscapes. The atmosphere, as a result, is truly impressive.Kneale and filmmaker Val Guest made a good team during the 1950s, having also worked on "The Quatermass Xperiment" and "Quatermass 2" for Hammer.Eight out of 10.

A nice cross between an adventure film and a horror that places a bunch of character archetypes into the dangerous conditions of the Himalayas. It's a surprisingly good movie although a lot of it doesn't hold up for a modern audience; for example, the abominable snowmen themselves do just look like men. However, the team behind this film played well to their restrictions by keeping the snowmen offscreen until the end, building up the suspense effectively until the big reveal. Cushing's British scientist and Tucker's gruff American are nice contrasts as our protagonists, with their interests and intents being revealed to be more and more different as the film progresses. Director Val Guest leaves us on a rather poignant note, however; using the Yetis as a metaphor for the genuine exploration and endangerment of animals, which was common news at the time.

Despite the title this is really not a monster on the rampage horror movie that you might expect from Hammer. Writer Nigel Kneale goes for quirky science and director Val Guest adds atmospheric direction on a low budget in this spooky thriller.Peter Cushing is principled botanist John Rollason searching for evidence of the Yeti in the Himalayas with an expedition team that includes dodgy Forrest Tucker who is more like a sinister Barnum type showman looking for monetary gain by capturing a Yeti.The creature is very much kept off screen for a lot of the time as Kneale explores humanity's darker side as represented by the likes of Tucker. It is suggested that the Yeti are gentle, intelligent beings from a superior civilisation that one day will take over from humans and Rollason does not view them as monsters.The film has a moral message aimed at perils of human greed and its penchant for destruction.

Although this is neither one of Nigel Kneale nor Hammer's better regarded works, it was one of my favourite on both counts. It was based on a sadly now lost BBC play called "The Creature" broadcast in 1955 and the always brilliant Peter Cushing reprises his role as a botanist named John Rollason who is searching for evidence that Yetis exist in the Himalayas. I don't think that the first credited star Forrest Tucker could act, frankly, but he and Cushing are nevertheless ably supported by the likes of Maureen Connell (the only woman in the film), Richard Wattis, Michael Brill and Arnold Malé. However, Robert Brown is a bit over the top as the obnoxious Ed Shelley.I think that the reason that this film is often unfairly overlooked by Hammer fans is that it's not standard Hammer fare. While it's atmospheric, spooky and claustrophobic like many Hammer films, the villain of the piece is not a supernatural or alien force but us. In fact, that is the reason that the original version of the story was called "The Creature" as Kneale wanted the title to be ambiguous, a subtlety that is lost in the film version. This is a morality play in which Kneale explores the darker side of human nature by suggesting that the Yeti are a superior civilisation in the sense that they're less inherently destructive than humans. They're actually gentle giants who are waiting for the opportunity to succeed humanity as the dominant species when we ultimately destroy ourselves. While other Hammer films keep Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster, etc., off-screen for much of the film, the Yetis are never seen in full at any point. When we do finally see their eyes towards the end of the film, it is clear that they are indeed the gentle creatures that Rollason believes them to be. It predates both series by several years but the film's storyline would have easily fit into either "The Twilight Zone" or "The Outer Limits".