Pluskylang Great Film overall

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

danmvalverde This film from the Hammer Frankenstein series has been much maligned in the past - probably based on the monster's look which, would likely not please those looking for good visual effects.Hammer were barred from copying any details from the Universal films of the 30s and '40s, including the famous monster make-up. As this film was distributed by Universal, Hammer had free rein to copy elements from the franchise, most noticeably the style (if not the application) of the creature's make-up and the laboratory sets. This gave the picture an extremely authentic look and feel.Lead Peter Cushing was meticulous about the technical details of the role, going as far as to seek advice on holding the scalpel correctly when performing medical scenes. - and this shows.The plot and production is where the piece excels. The Baron, now skinflint holds on to the eagerness of his assistant Hans in continuing his experiments to re-animate life. Though, this is not possible without the help of a mystic, Zoltan. Unfortunately, said mystic, fueled by his own hate and greed, sends the creature into the town to pillage and kill. The townspeople turn on Baron Frankenstein, leaving him desperate to find a way of ending the terror.One of my favourite Hammer films beginning to end.

Rainey Dawn This film like but not as well as parts 1, 2, and 5 of the Cushing Frankenstein series. It is a good film I just liked it a little less - it's the story of this film I liked a little less than the others. This film is a continuation of the story of Dr. Frankenstein, it pick up were part 2 left off.Everyone was good in this film -- but it was Peter Cushing that really carried this one all the way through more so than anything thing else.I definitely recommend this film to others that have enjoyed other Hammer Horror films and/or Peter Cushing's movies. It's worth it.7.5/10

TheLittleSongbird Like many, Evil of Frankenstein is my least favourite of the Hammer Frankenstein films starring Peter Cushing and is a lesser entry of the Hammer horror films. But does that make it a bad film? No, in fact it is very watchable, just disappointing.Evil of Frankenstein has its flaws, the main one being some of the story which is like different elements from past Universal/Hammer films recycled and cobbled together to sometimes muddled and underdeveloped effect, there are though some interesting elements(I personally found the mute girl subplot quite touching). It also took a while to get going and there is a clumsy and contrived script with a number of contradictory elements compared to other Frankenstein films, as a standalone the film's okay but continuity-wise comparatively it just didn't seem to fit. The monster's make-up is poor this time round, wasn't crazy about it in Curse of Frankenstein(the only real criticism this viewer had of that film) but at least the make-up in that film didn't look like layers of out of date oatmeal being put on the actor's head and face like here, giving it a fake rather than freaky look. It was nice to see the Monster as a misunderstood creature again but Kiwi Kingston for personal tastes played the role rather lifelessly, the monster never felt menacing here and it wasn't easy to root for him either. Sandor Eles also does next to nothing with a very underwritten role.However, Evil of Frankstein looks great apart from one cheap back-screen projection. The cinematography is simply splendid with nice shadowy effects and the sets and costumes are wonderfully sumptuous and Gothic, who can't love the lab set. Freddie Francis had big shoes to fill and his direction was a respectable effort but there was a sense that he wasn't quite the right man for the job. Narratively and pacing-wise, his direction does have a tendency to lumber but when it comes to the visuals and creating an atmosphere Francis' experience as a cinematographer shines through. There are some effective scenes here, the opening scene is brilliantly creepy and the climax and monster-coming-to-life scene are exciting. One notable exception is Frankenstein's escape from the Burgomaster, clumsily done as well as a little cheap-looking and should have been excised(personal view of course). Don Banks' music score is enough to evoke chills. The cast are good on the whole. Peter Cushing comes out on top as a more sympathetic than usual Frankenstein, he gives an as always great performance and makes his lacking dialogue seem more than it actually is. Peter Woodthorpe plays an absolute slimeball and literally has a ball with it while Katy Wild is touching as Rena the mute beggar girl, conveying a good deal of emotions through eyes and facial expressions.Overall, very watchable but this is not Hammer at their best. 6/10 Bethany Cox

DarthVoorhees Hammer and Universal told the same stories but they told them in vastly different ways. 'Evil of Frankenstein' marks the one time the two companies collaborated on a classic property. 'Evil of Frankenstein' has a lot of love for what Universal did. It is full of fun visual cues that fans of both companies are bound to get a smile from. The entertainment a horror fan gets from 'Evil of Frankenstein' unfortunately ends there. The Hammer Horror series was always weak on developing stories and it may be the most noticeable in 'Evil of Frankenstein'. This film has a definite problem, it tries so hard to be in the spirit of Universal that it forgets what made the Hammer films great. Peter Cushing is the soul of British horror and this narrative throws him completely to the side. Hammer and Universal's Frankenstein films were very different. Frankly I think Hammer's concept for a series is much more interesting than Universal's was. Old Boris Karloff was 100% on the money when he predicted that Frankenstein films would reduce the monster to being nothing more than a prop devoid of soul laying on a lab table. By the end of the series it required no acting talent to play the creature anymore. Hammer went in a different direction and followed the creator and not the creature. It's a clever idea and as the series progressed it allowed for a character that descended into deeper madness as he performed bizarre experiments. It also didn't hurt that the creator was the great Peter Cushing. Cushing is in a class of his own. Every line he reads has so much gravitas and cunning. He gives absolutely enthralling and electric performances even as he is forced to deliver the same expository horror lines over and over again. Cushing creates a character through the nuances when the scripts offer nothing in terms of character development.Cushing's Frankenstein is the draw. This film thinks the monster and the laboratory are. Are they enough to sustain a picture? No not really. This is the best looking Hammer film in terms of what they are able to do with sets and size but that hardly impresses me. 'Curse of Frankenstein' shows all of it's extremely low budget and yet it is very entertaining because Cushing transcends everything in his performance. So while it is nice to see there be more visually cool things for the people to play with I feel that there is no substance. A large part of the problems with the film is that the monster is so damned boring and awkward looking. Jack Pierce's designs are imitated somewhat but the make-up designer has no concept of subtlety. The monster looks as though he is completely covered in hardened paper mache. What nonsense. Kiwi Kingston is no Karloff. He mumbles around. The one thing Hammer failed to understand is that this role requires an actor with some talent to play. Kingston's monster is the only monster in the series to be the star of the film over Cushing. Unfortunately he is the worst monster Cushing ever stitched together.There is one interesting Universal homage that actually kind of works. Peter Woodthrope plays Zoltan, a sleazy hypnotist, who makes the monster his slave and instrument of revenge. This is when the film started to interest me. It is a brilliant homage to Ygor and 'Son of Frankenstein'. The problem is is that Woodthrope and the script in general play it too safe and do not do anything new with this idea. This is a pretty tame film as Hammer standards are concerned. I would wish that Zoltan was more of a sexual pervert and had a deeper blood lust. This is a character that could have been brought to life perfectly if the film were made only a few years later when Hammer were less shy about pushing the envelope with violence and nudity. Good idea and okay performance from Woodthrope but in the end this subplot is wasted potential. I don't imagine it could have been truly gripping with Kingston as the monster.Any enjoyment one gets from this film will come from seeing the homages to Universal. They entertain. I on the other hand wanted more Peter Cushing and a monster that was not a giant block.