Matrixiole
Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.
Glimmerubro
It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.
Kien Navarro
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Jackson Booth-Millard
The first film in the British Hammer (Horror) Studios series of Frankenstein movies is the best, the second was worth watching, the third was terrible, the fourth was alright, the fifth was good, the sixth entry (more a remake) was rubbish, this seventh and last entry I hoped would be a fitting end, directed by Terence Fisher (Dracula, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Mummy). Basically a Bodysnatcher (Patrick Troughton) is caught trying to rob a grave and is arrested, he snitches, giving the name and address of his client, Dr. Simon Helder (Shane Briant), the doctor is arrested and sentenced to five years in a psychiatric institution. The mental asylum is run by corrupt and perverted director Adolf Klauss (John Stratton), there Helder is tortured by the orderlies, Helder also discovers the asylum surgeon, under the alias of Dr. Carl Victor, is in fact Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing). Helder is an admirer of the Baron's work, and Frankenstein is impressed by Helder's talents, he takes Helder under his wing to become his apprentice in his continued experiments in the creation of man. Together Frankenstein and Helder work on designing a new creature, unknown to Helder, the Baron is using the body parts of his murdered patients, he does discover this and is uneasy. Frankenstein's hands are badly burned, so the shabby stitch-work is done by beautiful young assistant Sarah (Live and Let Die's Madeline Smith), nicknamed the "Angel", she is mute, because Frankenstein attempted to rape her. The hulking ape- like creature Monster (Dave Prowse), formerly homicidal inmate Herr Schneider, is completed, with the hands of recently deceased sculptor (Bernard Lee), it is given new eyes and a brain, but it is lumbering, hairy and dumb. Frankenstein is convinced that they have created something magnificent, Helder foolishly agrees with him, soon enough however the experiment goes wrong when the monster is angered and gets aggressively vicious, until eventually it is overpowered and destroyed by a mob of inmates. In the end, Sarah regains her ability to speak, Helder is disappointed by the failure of the experiment, but Frankenstein it was the best thing to happen for the creature, he already has plans for a new creature, using involuntary donors, the three of them seemingly prepare themselves. Also starring Norman Mitchell as Police Sergeant, Charles Lloyd Pack (Roger's father) as Professor Durendel, Sydney Bromley as Muller, Philip Voss as Ernst, Clifford Mollison as Judge and Janet Hargreaves as Chatter. Cushing just about remains sinister, despite his ridiculous wig, the monster played by Prowse to too absurd looking, I don't know fully why critics consider this a fitting final film for either the series of the career of director Fisher, it is predictable, there is no creepy atmosphere throughout compared to the previous films (the good ones), and I was not that happy with the unresolved ending, they could have just left it at the last one where the mad scientist was meant to have been burned alive, there are moments I liked, overall I found it an average horror. Okay!
Prichards12345
This one is the last of the Hammer Frankenstein movies, released largely to indifference; it can now be seen to be a more traditional style Hammer Horror than the company had been churning out of late. Terence Fisher returned to the genre after an absence of four years to deliver an engaging, if occasionally pedestrian film, and this was to prove his final outing as a director.Peter Cushing, after having been ousted for a younger model in the form of Ralph Bates in The Horror Of Frankenstien (1970) a cheap-looking and badly scripted reboot, is back for one last turn as the Baron, looking considerably older and thinner. but giving his performance the same old gusto and attention to detail. Here Frankenstein is hiding away in an asylum, holding the institute's director in his power (due to a clever plot reveal towards the end) and free to continue his nefarious experiments.He's joined by a young doctor who's banged up on exactly the same charges as Frankenstein - sorcery for grave-robbing and corpse-stitching, and it isn't long before they are rummaging up a new creation. Shayne Briant's look is somewhat reminiscent of Percy Shelly, and he gives a good performance amidst a welter of stalwart British character actors. Madeline Smith is also a very engaging "Angel"; Dave Prowse, who'd played him in Horror, does much better as the monster here - shows you what a good director can do with actors - but it's Cushing's movie of course. Pity about monster's look - a cheapy hirsute approach that's almost as bad as Evil Of Frankenstein's monster.The blue-ray edition is surprisingly eye-popping (literally) in its gore quotient, the only previous DVD and video editions have been severely cut in the UK. I have seen this movie on television, video and DVD, and only the arterial vein in the mouth scene had made it past the censor - Cushing's idea, I believe. Here we have a more gruesome brain op sequence and the restored version of the monster being torn to pieces, as well as random shots of hanging victims, etc. But over all this drifts a spirit of subtle black humour, which is far more likable than the Carry On-style stuff in Horror Of Frankenstein.The last Frankenstein hurrah for Hammer then, and overall it's a decent effort. Personally I still prefer Curse, Revenge, Created Woman and Must Be Destroyed.
arminhage
The movie is quiet like the not so good "Diamonds Are Forever" the last official Bond movie starring Sean Connery after a gap in the series which Bond was played by George Lazenby in OHMSS, a great movie though! Here we see good old Peter Cushing again as Baron Frankenstein for one last time although Cushing does not have half of his charm in previous movies but he still is considered the original Baron Frankenstein which gives movie a sense of originality to the audience.The movie appears to be a desperate departure from the cliché to lure audience in the fading market of mid 70s by briefly showing supposed to be gory but extremely cheesy surgery and slaughter scenes. Despite the incited curiosity, Such scenes were never shown in any of the prequels, a trend which should have been disappointing but it was not due to solid and very interesting stories. But in this very last, there was no solid screenplay and as a result, cheesy became cheesier and at some point became comic! a tragic failure for a horror movie. Now let's see what made this movie so bad... bad screenplay/story of course not the production. Production was as good as it was supposed to be.1. The monster's body came from a supposed to very strong criminally insane man. Well, what we saw was a beast straight out of "Beauty and the Beast", a creature which does not exist in reality.2. The monster was so disappointing but it leads to the second question. Why Frankenstein chose such body in first place? He always wanted to create a perfect man so why this monster? I know the answer. Frankenstein didn't want the beast but it was assumed by the producer that the audience wanted such monster.3. Apparently Baron had a hand problem so why not transplanting those supposed to be awesome hands to himself so he can do surgery again? Also as I remember, he changed his body once in the second movie so why not this time?4. Why baron wanted to transplant an insane genius's brain to his creation? to create an insane genius with the body of king kong?Terrible monster, Terrible story... it was a watchable movie just as part of the series. Do I feel that I wasted my time watching this movie?ABSOLUTELY
Scott LeBrun
Peter Cushing makes all the difference in this final entry in Hammer Studios' cycle of Frankenstein films. Overall, the film isn't overly atmospheric, and is talky, albeit with some effective moments of horror. It also looks like budgetary restrictions may have hampered it a bit, as most of the action is confined to one basic location, an insane asylum. Still, the monster this time is of a different variety - it looks like the missing link - and the acting is as sincere as it's ever been for a Hammer film. It also *looks* pretty good, and there is the kind of gore that horror lovers began to see in this sort of thing. A little sex appeal is provided by the extremely comely co-star Madeline Smith, as the mute Sarah. The inmates are also a fairly colourful bunch.Shane Briant stars as Simon Helder, a surgeon up to the same kind of thing as Baron Frankenstein was, once upon a time. He's arrested, charged with sorcery, and sent to the aforementioned asylum to serve a five year sentence. Guess who runs the place? Simon finds out that the Baron is once again doing resurrection experiments, and helping himself to the inmates when he needs body parts - like brains and hands. Simon is eager to help out, although he doesn't possess the ruthlessness of the Baron and does have *some* scruples, leading to some friction. Naturally, the experiment is fraught with problems.Marking the swan song for prolific Hammer director Terence Fisher, "Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell" is good, not great, Hammer horror, that does remain watchable with its new twists on the familiar formula. The cast is excellent: Cushing is solid as a rock, and works well with the young Briant. The Baron actually gets to have a good laugh for once here, which is refreshing to see. The film is also noteworthy for co-starring Cushing and David Prowse, who would of course team up as villains in "Star Wars". Prowse plays the Monster as he did in the previous entry, "The Horror of Frankenstein". John Stratton is deliciously sleazy as the asylum director. There are small roles and cameos for the likes of Clifford Mollison, Patrick Troughton, Charles Lloyd Pack, Bernard Lee, Philip Voss, Christopher Cunningham, and Sydney Bromley. One good thing is that the Monster is as pitiable as he should be, while being intimidating at the same time.This is reasonably engaging entertainment that ends in a very fitting way. If you're a Hammer fan, it does come recommended.Seven out of 10.
