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").

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.

Victor Frankenstein is a gifted but zealous medical student, researching into the mysteries of existence. Whilst on a summer break, he determines that he will create a man from the body parts of dead people and give him life. Can this madness succeed ?This is an engaging, straightforward adaptation of the classic Mary Shelley novel, almost like a colour remake of the James Whale / Boris Karloff version. When Hammer Films made The Curse Of Frankenstein in 1957, they weren't allowed to copy Jack Pierce's iconic flat-head-bolted-together look, but Prowse (alias Darth Vader) is an impressive lookalike here; a mute, stomping, creepy, destructive evil force. Despite not being Peter Cushing, Bates is excellent as the Bad Baron, giving a performance which is so direct and unflamboyant (Kenneth Branagh, please take note) as to be stylishly unstylish. He matter-of-factly kills his father, his best friend, his lover, a neighbour, and - most fiendish of all - a pet tortoise for the sake of his black-hearted work, all the while maintaining a clear, unflappably calm, pragmatic, even agreeable intellect. This was the second of five key roles Bates made for Hammer, and he is terrific in all of them (particularly Dr Jekyll & Sister Hyde). The only truly original aspect of this version is the new character of the scheming lover/housekeeper Alys, played with great aplomb, a somewhat wobbly accent and a dress that's about to fall down, by O'Mara. The agreeable cast is filled out by the equally ravishing Hammer regular Carlson (check her out also in Dracula Has Risen From The Grave), a rather corpulent Price as a cheery graverobber who meets a grisly end and the always watchable Finch (Frenzy, The Tragedy Of Macbeth) who underplays it nicely in the burgermeister role which is so frequently hammed up. Co-writer, producer and director Sangster was in many ways the backbone of Hammer, penning the scripts and assisting in the production of a great many of these classic British horrors. This is one of his few directorial efforts (though he and Bates made the enjoyable Lust For A Vampire the next year) and is probably the direct, no frills, classic adaptation of the great story he wanted to make. For a tale that's been told so many times, both before and since, this is a well made, faithful and entertaining movie and one of the better versions of Shelley's groundbreaking horror masterpiece.

"The Horror of Frankenstein" is one of the best entries in Hammer's series.**SPOILERS** Growing bored in school, Victor Frankenstein, (Ralph Bates) feels that his studies deserve more attention, and finally manages to take over the family's affairs as well as Alys, (Kate O'Mara) the maid. Wanting to go to medical school in Vienna, he ends up going away, upsetting his friends at school Stephan, (Steven Tyler) Maggie, (Glenys O'Brian) and Elizabeth, (Veronica Carlson) before gaining a friend in anatomy classmate Wilhelm, (Graham Jones) before returning and beginning experimentation on regeneration. As they continue their experiments, they realize they can bring dead objects back to life. He soon wants to push the boundaries of the experiments, which starts to offset him from the whole thing. When he announces that he wants to bring a human creature, (David Prowse) back to life, his feelings about it are resurfaced even stronger than before. When the experiments are completed and they successfully raise the man-made creature from the dead, it gets loose and commences a reign of murder and terror, forcing him to decide if it is best if he killed the monster.The Good News: This was a really decent and enjoyable entry. As this is a later film in the Hammer collection, this one can finally let loose with gore and nudity, and both here are in full abundance. There are ample deaths in this movie, both by Victor and the monster, including having a person immersed in acid, another is electrocuted, several are poisoned and another one has a rifle explode in his face. There is even more blood and gore from the deceased, as a dead person is decapitated, one has his limbs dismembered, and others have other body parts hacked off and sewn together into the creature with massive amounts of blood-loss in the process. Even the monster had a violent kill, hacking a man with an ax several times. Not exactly the greatest amount of variety in the deaths, but this one has bloodier results. Even the several sex scenes are an improvement in earlier films, as the sexuality of the scenes is now fully capable of being shown in detail. Several women are shown nude, but the best has to be Kate, as she is shown in several situations and is really nice to view. The castle is also a really nice set-piece, with the long, dark corridors, the large Gothic interiors are pretty creepy and impressive upon first viewing, and the laboratory set-pieces are all quite fun. They add immensely to its creepiness and lends a bit more of the original Gothic tones in the original novel. Even the grave-robbing scenes are quite creepy and fit in quite well with the tone of the film. There's also plenty to enjoy about it's scenes in the lab as they go about their experiments, which are all done rather well. With the progression from animals to people being quite natural, it feels quite disturbing as well with the amount of time spent around the cadavers, which are grossly disfigured and marked-up, complete with the surgeries on them to put it all together being quite nauseating at times. The last big plus is that the last half of the film is somewhat more entertaining and enjoyable with the inclusion of several rather fun scenes. The monster's rampages through the woods are nice and suspenseful, the attacks are brutal and much more, making it a rather enjoyable series of scenes. These here are the film's good points.The Bad News: There wasn't a whole lot really wrong with this one. The depiction of Victor as a womanizing, lying thief is pretty much the main fault within the movie. It didn't feel like it was in good taste to do so, as he was perhaps more villainous than the monster. It didn't serve the movie that well with them doing so, as there isn't a pay-off for the whole scenario and it simply makes the film a cheat as he doesn't get his comeuppance at all. Also, the monster design looks terrible and it's not very imposing. The creature is a pretty threatening-looking person, but the makeup was a disaster, simply applying scars on the body at various places to look as if he was in fact put together fairly quickly. Maybe a large FX budget could've supplies a more grotesque-looking creature. It really drags the scenes of it down somewhat considerably. These, though, are the film's few flaws.The Final Verdict: It's not the best in the series, but this is still a very entertaining entry that all fans of Hammer films and the series will enjoy. Later-era Hammer fans are encouraged to give this one a shot, as well as those who enjoy the genre's output at the time, though those looking for other factors are encouraged to heed caution.Today's Rating; R: Nudity, Graphic Violence, Adult Language, and several short sex scenes