3/10
The Bore of Frankenstein
8 December 2001
If nothing else, this movie is conclusive evidence of why Jimmy Sangster did not have a busy career as a director. Easily the worst Hammer Frankenstein (and one of Hammer's overall worst), HORROR is dull, plodding and seemingly endless. Ralph Bates, acceptable in some other Hammer films, plays Victor Frankenstein in precisely the same snide, supercilious tone throughout; nothing gets him excited, not sex with a gorgeous woman, not murdering his best friend, not even (accidentally) bringing his Monster to life. Peter Cushing was so very much better in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (of which HORROR is basically a remake) that there simply is no comparison at all.

And Sangster matches him beat for beat; scenes have no pacing, they're just there, fulfilling their plot function (most of the time -- there's no payoff to Victor getting the dean's daughter pregnant), and then going slowly on to the next sequence; each scene is laden with boring talk. It seems to take almost the entire movie to bring the Monster to life, and then he doesn't do anything very interesting -- plus he's one of the least interesting-LOOKING Frankenstein Monsters in movie history.

There's some humor in the film (and some failed attempts at it), the best joke being Victor's body-part number appearing (in his imagination) on the forehead of the next "donor." But there's not enough humor to make this a comedy; there isn't even any attitude -- of any sort -- toward the material that would indicate a satire. It's a flat, lifeless movie with great color and good sets. But even with those good sets, the film seems very, very cheap. Hammer was definitely in a decline at this time.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed