The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) User Reviews

The birth of Hammer horror!

[jluis1984 · 8/10 · 7 August 2007]

In 1934, during the boom of British cinema, businessman William Hinds, decided to enter the industry and create his own film company, "Hammer Productions Ltd.", where he would produce several movies before being forced into bankruptcy due to the end of the industry's bonanza. Along with partner Enrique Carreras, Hinds became a film distributor, but that wasn't really the end of Hammer's history, as many years later, Carreras' son James joined Hinds' son Anthony and together with their parents, resurrected Hammer Film Productions in 1949. The next two important events in Hammer's history were the hiring of director Terence Fisher in 1951, and the enormous success of 1955's horror film, "The Quatermass Xperiment", as they would play important roles the company's future. While Hammer was preparing "Quatermass 2", they gave Terence Fisher the chance to resurrect Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", and Hammer Horror was born.

In "The Curse of Frankenstein", Peter Cushing plays Baron Victor Frankenstein, who after losing his family at a young age, hires scientist Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart) as a mentor. Along Krempe, the young Baron develops his enormous genius for science, becoming great friends and colleagues as he grows up. During one of their experiments, they discover a way to bring a dead dog back to life, an amazing discovery that excites both scientists as it could be of enormous use for medicine. However, Victor wants to go further, and decides that the next step is the creation of life. Krempe refuses to help Victor in that experiment, but decides to stay in the house to protect Victor's cousin Elizabeth (Hazel Court), who has arrived to marry Victor, unsuspecting of her fianceé's experiments. The Baron's obsession with his experiment will prove to be more dangerous than what Krempe thinks.

The screenplay for this new version of Shelley's classic was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had previously written "X: The Unknown" for Hammer the previous year. Unlike what happens in Universal's 1931 classic adaptation, the plot is completely focused on the Baron's figure instead of on the creature, which gives a new and fresh angle to the story, as it explores Frankenstein's obsessions and how they begin to consume his life. To achieve this, Sansgter adds a lot of human drama and character development that at times makes the film more a Gothic tragedy than a typical horror film, but even when limited, Sangster's use of suspense is still pretty effective. It still isn't exactly a straight adaptation of Shelley's novel, but Sangster's screenplay does offer an interesting idea by not making the Creature a misunderstood monster, but the literal symbol of Frankenstein's failure and corruption.

Anyways, while Jimmy Sangster's screenplay is indeed worthy of recognition, it was really Terence Fisher's work as a director what ultimately gave Hammer horror it's true face. While already an experienced director by the time he made "The Curse of Frankenstein", Fisher found in Hammer's horror films the creative freedom that allowed him to explore new realms in this reinterpretations of old classics. His care for details in set design and costume design give the film a great look that equals the one of movies with bigger production values, and using vibrant colors, he puts a special emphasis on blood for the first time. There are also several sexual overtones in the film that give the movie a different style to previous incarnations of the novel, an element that Fisher would take further in posterior movies, specially in "Dracula" and "The Curse of the Werewolf".

"The Curse of Frankenstein" is also the film that introduced two of the most important actors in the horror genre since the days of Universal's movies: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. As Baron Frankenstein, Cushing delivers an outstanding performance that can be considered among the best in the history of the genre. Making a fascinating character out of the unsympathetic Baron is not easy, but Cushing succeeds remarkably and completely makes the movie his own. Lee has a considerably smaller role as the Creature, but while "Dracula" would be the movie where he would shine the most, here he delivers a powerful performance as the Monster. As Frankenstein's mentor, Paul Krempe, Robert Urquhart is pretty effective and makes a great counterpart to Cushing's Baron. Hazel Court is less successful as Elizabeth, although it's not really a bad performance at all.

It's hard not to think about comparing Fisher's interpretation of "Frankenstein" to the legendary movie made by James Whale 26 years before for Universal, but really, in the end it's a pointless exercise as both movies are so different from each other (and different from Shelley's novel) that there's no proper way to compare them. While one has a powerful story of a misunderstood monster (played brilliantly by Boris Karloff), the other is a tale of ambition and obsessions where the monster is nothing more than the ultimate result of Frankenstein's evil, so it's impossible to tell which one is the best of the two. What can really be said about "The Curse of Frankenstein" is that it suffers from an extremely slow pace that may turn off some viewers, although as the story unfolds, this slow pace does pay off in the end and helps to build up a perfect Gothic atmosphere.

An enormously successful film, "The Curse of Frankenstein" began the style of Gothic horror that would later be labeled as "Hammer Horror". With Fisher at the helm, Hammer would become a great influence in how the genre was developed through the 60s, giving it new life and pushing the boundaries of the era. While maybe overshadowed by Fisher's posterior masterpieces, "The Curse of Frankenstein" is still one of the best tales of Gothic horror that have appeared on the silver screen. 8/10

Even if we dared to omit its landmark importance; it's still a terrific movie.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 6 November 2010]

The Curse Of Frankenstein is out of Hammer Film Productions and based on the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. It's directed by Terence Fisher, written by Jimmy Sangster and stars Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Hazel Court & Robert Urquhart. Jack Asher is the cinematographer and James Bernard scores the music.

The first Hammer film in colour, The Curse Of Frankenstein began the second wave of cinematic horror some 25 odd years after the Universal heyday of the 30s. Where Hammer's version differs from the Universal offerings, who were carefully watching what Hammer were doing, is by focusing on the Baron himself rather than the actual iconic creature. This approach threw many critics and observers at the time, with some either calling it too talky, or worse still, depressing and degrading. But the box office tills rang, both in Britain and America, and now the film is revered by film makers and horror historians alike. Rightly so.

Plot basically sees Baron Victor Frankenstein in prison for murder, where faced with the guillotine, he tells to a priest an amazing story of how he and his mentor successfully resurrected a dead body. The resulting creation being the one who committed the murder for which the Baron is now charged. The first masterstroke from Hammer was appointing Fisher and Sangster, the former shoots in lurid Eastmancolor; thus setting the marker for the Gothic style of Hammer to come, the latter produced a crackling script that make the scientist of the piece the actual monster. The second masterstroke was in the casting of Cushing as the driven Frankenstein. Then just a classy actor on TV, Cushing plays it in turns as cold blooded and elegantly charming. Lee, only getting the gig after Bernard Bresslaw's agent demanded too much money, actually doesn't have to do much, but his marionette movements coupled with the fleshy patchwork make up of his face make it totally memorable. Both men of course went on to become horror legends from here.

It's far from the best Hammer Horror film, in fact it's not the best of the Universal Creature reinventions. But it adds grit and intelligence to the Gothic atmospherics, its visuals striking as the character based narrative propels eerily forward. 8/10

Over-the-top horror film with two awesome actors from Hammer Productions

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 26 May 2012]

Outstanding horror film that began a series starred by two greatest terror icons as Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee ; being one of the best movies from Hammer Productions . It starts in prison when a prisoner is awaiting death row , he is Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) who retells to a priest what led him to his execution . He inherited his family state with the title 'Baron Victor Von Frankestein' after the death of his parents when he was still only a young man (Hayes) . He contacted Paul Krempe (Robert Uquhart) as his tutor and he immediately developed an interest in medical science . After several years , Victor and Krempe became notorious scientists and they developed a penchant in the human origins and Victor then creates a weird being and brings it to life . After successfully re-animating a dead dog , Victor sets about constructing a man using body parts he acquires for the purpose including the hands of an artist and the brain of a prestigious scholar (Paul Hardmouth). But as Elizabeth (Hazel Court) , Victor's Cousin arrives to marry him, Paul stays in the house to protect her . Victor Frankenstein whose experimentation with creation of life becomes an obsession , but his creature behaves not as he intended .

The classic actor of horror movies named Christopher Lee is terrific as the monster and Peter Cushing brings a strong portrayal of the scientific attempting to create a human taking parts here and there . Although they had both previously appeared in Hamlet and Moulin Rouge, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing met on the set of this film for the first time and quickly developed a fast friendship, which lasted until Cushing's death in 1994 . Atmospheric, slick terror film , creaky at times but it's still impressive . Thought-provoking and broody screenplay has nice atmosphere especially in Eastmancolour by expert cameraman Jack Asher . The idea originated with Milton Subotsky, who went on to co-found Amicus Films, Hammer's main rival during the 1960s and early 1970s , the script was revised several times to avoid repeating any elements from the Universal Frankenstein series , as part of this effort, new monster make-up had to be devised especially for this film . After the successful Universal Pictures as ¨House of Frankestein¨, ¨Bride of Frankestein¨ , ¨Son of Frankestein¨, ¨Frankestein meet the wolf man¨ and ¨ The Zingara and the monsters¨ , Frankestein personage was left until Hammer Productions took him and produced this magnificent movie ; although Universal threatened a lawsuit if Hammer copied any elements from the classic version . Followed by six sequels as ¨Revenge of Frankestein¨ by Fisher , ¨Evil of Frankestein¨ by Freddie Francis , Frankestein created woman¨ by Fisher , ¨Frankestein must be destroyed¨ by Fisher , ¨The horror of Frankestein¨ by Jimmy Sangster and ¨Frankestein and the monster from hell¨ by Fisher ; all of them starred by Peter Cushing and one by Ralph Bates , besides similar artistic and technician team as the cameraman Jack Asher , Production designer Bernad Robinson , musician James Bernard and make-up by Philip Leaky.

¨The curse of Frankestein¨ displays excellent set design , ambitious screenplay with too many eerie scenes and adequate interpretation for all casting . Peter Cushing does a top notch performance in the role which made him a terror movie legend , it still stands as one of the great screen acting . Thrilling and chilling musical score by James Bernard . Colorful and imaginative cinematography by Jack Asher , being first Frankenstein movie to be filmed in color . The motion picture was masterfully directed by Terence Fisher who directed classic horror films as ¨Dracula¨, ¨Dracula , prince of darkness¨ , ¨The brides of Dracula¨ , ¨The mummy¨ , ¨Phantom of opera¨, ¨The Gorgon¨ , ¨The devil rides out¨ and many others . Rating : Top-drawer terror film , essential and indispensable watching .

A landmark horror movie with a remarkable performance from Peter Cushing.

[Infofreak · 25 April 2004]

'The Curse Of Frankenstein' is a landmark horror movie for several reasons. Firstly, though Hammer had already released 'The Quatermass Xperiment', a science fiction movie with some horror elements, it was the studios first real entry into the genre which it is still revered around the world for. Secondly, it was the first movie inspired by Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' made in colour. And thirdly, while it wasn't the first movie to feature both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, it was their first horror movie together, and one which introduced one of THE great screen duos, who eventually made over twenty movies together. Lee doesn't have as much on screen time as one might expect, but his Monster is memorable and visually striking (after Universal threatened to sue if the image of Karloff's monster was copied). As well as Lee, the supporting cast includes good performances from Robert Urquhart and Hazel Court. Urquhart plays Paul Krempe, initially the young Baron's tutor (the Baron being briefly portrayed by Melvyn Hayes before Cushing), and later his often unwilling assistant. Court, best remembered for her roles in some of Roger Corman's Poe series, plays the Baron's cousin/fiancee. The standout performance of the movie is by Peter Cushing. I still think Karloff is the definitive Monster but Cushing is the definitive Baron Frankenstein. There were six sequels to 'The Curse Of Frankenstein' and Cushing played Frankenstein in all but one, the second last in the series 'The Horror Of Frankenstein', which was actually a tongue in cheek remake of 'Curse..' starring Ralph Bates as the Baron. The movie wasn't completely successful and thankfully Cushing returned for the final movie 'Frankenstein And The Monster From Hell'. For me the first and last in the series tie as the best Hammer Frankenstein movies and Cushing is remarkable in them both. I highly recommend 'The Curse Of Frankenstein', one of Hammer's greatest horror movies. No-one can truly call themselves a horror movie fan if they haven't seen it.

Curse viewed through the lens of tens of other Frankenstein films

[BrandtSponseller · 6/10 · 17 July 2006]

It's very difficult for me to judge if my opinion on The Curse of Frankenstein would be higher if I were to watch it coming from a different background/history. This latest viewing I believe is only the second time that I've seen Curse, with the first many, many years ago--so long ago that I could barely remember it. In the meantime, I've watched at least a few times, with relatively recent viewings, everything from Universal's 1931 Frankenstein (as well as their 1935 Bride of Frankenstein and other films in that series) to Flesh for Frankenstein (1973), Young Frankenstein (1974), Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (1994), Frankenhooker (1990)--even Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam (1920)--and many other Frankenstein or related films. A few of those I've seen at least 10 times over the years.

So I'm coming back to Curse almost as if I'm seeing it for the first time, while already having those films mentioned above as favorites for different aspects of the Frankenstein story, such as atmosphere, visceralness, humor, grandiosity, campiness, and so on. In fact, a number of those films are favorites of all time, period. For me, then, Curse had tough competition on this viewing, and without doing something significantly different with the story, it might fall short.

What Curse probably does better than all of the other Frankenstein films that I've seen is relationship dynamics. At the moment, I'd call Curse the "soap opera" version of the story, which is not really meant as a knock. Here, Victor Frankenstein has lost his father at a very young age--he became Baron at the age of five. The film begins by showing the power and control this young man has over others. He contracts to have a tutor come teach him about science, and together, they begin exploring the scientific basis of life--the "life force" more specifically, which leads to the usual Frankenstein plot elements.

At the same time, however, the focus remains on relationships. We have a complex tutor/student, master/employee, genius/follower relationship between Victor (Peter Cushing) and Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart), his teacher. Victor is engaged to be married--it's an arranged marriage--to Elizabeth (Hazel Court), his cousin, yet he's in at least a lustful relationship with a housekeeper, Justine (Valerie Gaunt). At the same time, Paul seems to have fallen in love with Elizabeth, and it's ambiguous to what extent she may feel the same towards him. The actual "curse" here seems to be one of difficult/dysfunctional relationships, where everyone is involved in complex power struggles with almost everyone else, and no one quite comes out victorious (ironically enough). All of this stuff is pretty good, if appropriately staid for the Victorian setting (hmmmm . . . lots of occurrences of "victor--"). On the down side, some of the cinematography/lighting veers towards a soap opera look, which doesn't do much for me.

A lot of the usual Frankenstein themes are here, too, but sometimes they almost feel like an afterthought. Christopher Lee, who plays the Frankenstein monster, is severely underused. He remains more in the background throughout the film.

Still, lots of the usual Frankenstein film stuff is done well, if a bit subtly. Keeping the monster's body half immersed in fluid was a good idea--there's a creepiness just to the way it looks and it is also unsettling because you wonder why it's only half-submerged. It seems if it needs to be submerged, the whole body should be, so from the beginning of the experiments, it feels more strongly like something is off about Victor. The more visceral body part scenes (like acquiring the hands and eyes) work very well, especially in context, and Lee's make-up was well done, including the fact that he more strongly suggests both a mummy (because of the bandages) and a zombie--the Frankenstein monster should rightly suggest both. Also, the acting is very good throughout--particularly Cushing's performance.

But for me, as good as Curse is, it pales in comparison to its Frankenstein brethren. It's good, but other films do the various aspects better, except maybe for the relationship stuff, but for me, that's not enough to elevate Curse to the same echelon as many of those other films.

While no Frankenstein film comes close to the wonderful book, this one offers some unique insight

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 12 November 2006]

As my summary indicates, no Frankenstein movie really has done justice to Mary Shelley's masterpiece novel. One of the biggest problems is that the movies all tend to spend too much time on how the creature is created (it was barely mentioned in the book). The other is that the fundamental moral question posed in the book is also often absent (the guilt of the doctor for creating and then abandoning his creation). Instead, films focus almost voyeuristically at the creature's actions. This movie isn't quite as bad in this regard, because the monster is not the mass-murdering creature he is in some versions and the doctor is truly a bad man! Peter Cushing plays a strange Dr. Frankenstein in that this time he is very willing to commit murders himself to further his work plus he is a selfish user (having impregnated and then killing his housekeeper). This is no kindly man wanting to help humanity--instead it's all about glory and a desire to play god.

The monster is the least traditional monster I've seen in a very long time. Instead of looking like Karloff, Christopher Lee looks like a combination of a person and a festering piece of blue cheese!! This isn't necessarily a bad thing--the monster was supposed to look pretty bad and her certainly does! However, this cheesy guy never really is allowed to do all that much damage to the populace--and spends most of the movie confined to Frankenstein's castle.

I think that the best part of the film is actually its conclusion. I don't want to spoil it, but thought it was great that it brought up a lot of questions as to what really occurred. This vagueness I really liked because I am sure that people will be debating this for some time and I love endings that are open to multiple interpretations. It's a very good, but not great version of the classic tale.

Frankenstein Begins(For Hammer)

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 23 November 2013]

Terence Fisher directed this handsome adaptation of the Mary Shelley novel, filmed before by Universal Studios, but now for Hammer. Peter Cushing plays Victor Frankenstein, who has been sentenced to the guillotine for murder, and recounts his life story to a priest. Victor came into his wealth as a young man after his mother died, and hired Paul Krempe(played by Richard Urquhart) to be his tutor, but as the years passed showed a remarkable ability in the medical field, and became obsessed with recreating life, which not only affected his relationship with his fiancée Elizabeth(played by Hazel Court) but with everyone, as his crowning achievement is a creature(played by Christopher Lee) that is brought to life with old body parts... Well acted and directed film takes many liberties with the novel but result is a success, and led to several sequels with Peter Cushing.

Cushing is Terrific.

[Space_Mafune · 9/10 · 7 November 2002]

This was Hammer Films opening entry into their Horror re-imagining of classic Universal Studios Monsters and it is still one of the best. Here we get a new take on the familiar Frankenstein myth with the young Frankenstein coming from a fatherless background and embracing only science and reason with any real conviction. Finally when a breakthrough comes, the Young master will stop at nothing to achieve the fame, glory and notoriety he desires--his lack of regard for others is frightening even to his mentor Paul Krempe(played excellently by Robert Urquhart)who warns him against tampering with the forces of nature and that nothing good will come from it. Cushing is outstanding in the role and adds a real sense of tragedy, genius and malice. Hazel Court is certainly lovely as the innocent cousin Elizabeth who naively becomes entangled into Frankenstein's sinking path of unconscious self-destruction.

"My creature will be born in a lifetime of knowledge".

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 30 October 2010]

"The Curse of Frankenstein" was the one that put Hammer Films on the horror map back in 1957. Since Universal's Frankenstein 'look' had been copyrighted, Hammer went back to Mary Shelley's source material to create a new one, probably closer to Shelley's vision as it turns out. Other liberties are taken with the original story - no nasty digging around a graveyard to get a body, but simply cut one down from the gallows. The idea of Baron Victor (Peter Cushing) cutting off the head was probably more gruesome than actually seeing it done since it forces you to picture how that might have gone.

The thing I can't get used to with all the Hammer films I've seen so far is the vibrant use of color. Krempe's (Robert Urquhart) red robe, the Baron's bright green coat, all those lab chemicals in an array of improbable hues. It's one of the hallmarks that makes Hammer, Hammer. I guess it depends what era you were born in and when you started watching horror flicks; I must be conditioned to glorious black and white so all that color seems like sensory overload.

As for the story, it holds up pretty well, even if it takes almost fifty minutes for the Monster to make his first appearance. Krempe's disgust with this 'criminal lunatic' leads him to shoot the monster in the face!, which was probably the most shocking thing for me in the whole picture. Christopher Lee of course is superb as the Monster, but you don't get a sense of the angst the creature suffered the way he did in the 1931 Universal version. And for me, it's tough to warm up to the Hammer Frankenstein after you've seen Karloff in the original.

Hammer Makes its Mark

[Vornoff-3 · 8/10 · 22 April 2011]

This was the movie that really put Hammer studios, and Peter Cushing, on the map. It was a brilliant move, at a time when horror had shifted over almost completely to sci fi and giant mutant beasts, to start a project of remaking the classics with atmosphere, drama, color, and a bit more graphic content. Folks who know me won't be surprised that I generally prefer the older 30s Universal versions of the movies, but I have to admit that Hammer is always enjoyable. In this case, they really seem to have returned to the source material effectively, and even added a bit to it without overdoing it. As I recall Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, he was a victim of scientific hubris, but not quite such a cad - but this seems to make sense, as his disregard for the laws of man could easily translate to disregard for sexual mores, much as it did for the men in Shelley's own life. It's a bit longer than the Universal version, and it takes quite a while before we see the monster, but it's enjoyable throughout.

Memorable Hammer Horror Version of a Familiar Tale

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 4 November 2014]

One of the earliest Hammer horror movies, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN tells a familiar tale, one that closely follows the plot of other adaptations, notably James Whale's groundbreaking film for Universal in 1930.

What makes Terence Fisher's version so compelling is the way in which the story has been treated; for the late Fifties it is surprisingly explicit in the way it depicts Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) handling various body-parts - eyes, limbs - and at one point is shown sawing the head off the corpse that forms the basis of the monster (Christopher Lee). The principal female characters Elizabeth (Hazel Court) and the maid Justine (Valerie Gaunt) wear period costumes whose décollété leaves little or nothing to the imagination. The only concession to the more squeamish viewers that Fisher makes is to refrain from showing the Monster killing his various victims, notably Grandpa (Fred Johnson) in gory detail.

Cushing turns in a memorable characterization of the Baron - an enthusiastic scientist who has spent much of his life being spoiled. In early sequence, the Baron is shown as a young boy (played by Melvyn Hayes) running the house on his own - ordering the servants around, and engaging a tutor Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart) to teach him about life's basics. This independence, acquired at so early an age, has both positive and negative effects: the Baron learns to fend for himself, but at the same time proves reluctant to take advice - even when it is well-intentioned. The adult Baron becomes more and more committed to the project of creating the Monster, even if it means contravening the laws of Nature. Krempe tries his best to dissuade him, but the Baron takes no notice; on the contrary, he becomes quite frenzied in his efforts to finish his experiments. Cushing suggests this cleverly through a series of bird-like movements; his body taut, his hands flitting across the instruments and test-tubes that clutter his laboratory.

In the end the Baron gets his comeuppance, as he is sent to jail and hanged. But Fisher does not send him to his death without providing a memorable denouement, which does not exist in the source-text but emphasizes the extent to which the Baron's brilliant intelligence has been corrupted by his scientific work.

Although only just over eighty minutes long, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN still has the capacity to startle audiences through its combination of memorable sequences and taut storytelling. Definitely worth repeated viewings.

Better than the Original, to me!

[daleja-dale · 8/10 · 19 May 2011]

Next to the Amimus anthology horror films, Hammer horror films (especially the ones directed by Terrance Fisher) are my favorite British films! "The Curse of Frankenstien" is one of my favorite of those great Terrance Fisher directed Hammer horror films! Unlike the original Frankenstein of 1931, this film put most of the enthuses on the Doctor instead of the Monster and I think it was a good ideal! Peter Cushing in my opinion, was the greatest Docter Frankenstein ever! He was the main villain in this film! The film was in color and it had a good moral message in it as well! I also like how those British horror films of the late 1950s though early 1970s, while less conservative than earlier horror films, did not go to extremes with blood and gore like later horror films do! They were very much in between the two extremes!

A smashing success for Hammer.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 23 October 2016]

Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) is moping inside a jail cell, awaiting execution by guillotine for his crimes. Desperate for somebody to believe his story, he calls in a priest (Alex Gallier) and relates his sad tale. He'd been determined to realize his dream of contriving a man made being, and succeeded to some degree, bringing a scar faced brute (Sir Christopher Lee) to deadly life. But his associate / tutor Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart) had developed a severe case of scruples, deciding that absolutely nothing good could come of their activities.

This was the film that really made the fortunes for Britains' famed Hammer Studios. They truly gave the Gothic horror a fresh coat of colorful paint in the 1950s, and set a standard in period detail and set decoration that they would maintain for over the next decade and a half. Even after period horror was no longer in vogue, they gamely continued in their pursuits. They played up the sex appeal of the material with their attractively costumed, lovely female cast members, and also upped the level of on screen violence.

Hammer makeup expert Phil Leakey gave the towering Lee an appropriately gruesome face to behold, no matter if it's not iconic as Jack Pierces' work was in the Universal horrors of the 30s and 40s. Director Terence Fisher does a commendable job that would help see him become a favorite in house filmmaker for Hammer. And that laboratory equipment is quite fun to look at; there are some potent images here for fans to enjoy.

Cushing is, as always, wonderful, and he makes a character that otherwise would come off as a coldly stubborn, dangerous fool a definite degree of likability. Lee does a fine job, equally menacing and somewhat sympathetic. Beautiful Hazel Court is our appealing leading lady, and Urquhart is excellent as the moral centre to Mary W. Shelley's classic tale. Valerie Gaunt, Paul Hardtmuth, and Melvyn Hayes are among those in an engaging supporting cast.

Although not as thickly atmospheric as it might have been in black & white, "The Curse of Frankenstein" does entertain in a straightforward, quickly paced manner.

Seven out of 10.

Monster revived

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 18 July 2015]

The Curse of Frankenstein was a monster smash at the UK box office. A low budget, colourful and Gothic re-telling of the Frankenstein story. Less baroque that the later Kenneth Branagh version of the 1990s this was the film that began the reputation of Hammer horror films.

Christopher Lee plays the revived monster a world away from the flat headed and flat footed Boris Karloff whose makeup was trademarked to Universal Pictures.

The real monster is Peter Cushing's Baron Frankenstein, an obsessive scientist, unethical and a cold blooded murderer. He performs medical experiments with his friend Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart) to reanimate tissue. Whereas Krempe has doubts, Frankenstein has none.

In fact the viewer has little sympathy for any of the main characters. Krempe damages the brain that Frankenstein has procured, the result is a homicidal monster. Krempe can never get away from his former pupil and you know he is attracted to his fiancée.

The film is more melodramatic than horror but its very flawed. Their are good production values, it is colourful. The scene where the old professor takes a plunge is well photographed but the constant argument between Krempe and Frankenstein gets irritating.

Still haunting after more than forty years.

[uncacreepy · 9 March 2001]

This is a film that almost never was. Originally planned as a 'quota quickie', and, as Terence Fisher stated. "As a send-up," it ended up changing the British Film Industry for all time. It had gone international. Fisher owed Hammer a film, and somehow he managed to pull a script together in much the same manner as the Baron did body parts. It has been said that Jack Warner hated the film, but released it anyway, opening in the very theatre where 'The House of Wax' had premiered several years before. It was a success, much to the delight of Warner, and to Hammer. It also marked the beginning of the screen-teaming of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Today, the film seems a bit slow and not quite sure where it's going, but in 1957 it delivered a wallop in vivid color, to a long-waiting legion of fans. This was the true jumping-off point for Hammer, a small company who had been in production for a number of years, and they filled the void left by the American majors in the production of the 'horror film.' In a way, the film's tag-line kept it's promise.... 'The Curse of Frankenstein will haunt you forever.'

Quite by accident, 'The Hammer Look' changed the face of the fantasy film for all time.

British horror is revitalised in an adaptation of a classic

[mwilson1976 · 6/10 · 12 January 2020]

Britain's Hammer Film Productions really made their mark with this adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, it was their first colour horror film and the one that single-handedly revived traditional British Gothic and firmly placed the "Hammer House of Horror" on the global gore map. Condemned to death for a series of murders, Baron Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) tries to convince his captors that the crimes were those of a strange half-human creature he created in a laboratory. Christopher Lee plays the monster, and looks hideous in make up created by Phil Leakey. Universal Studios fought hard to prevent Hammer from duplicating aspects of their classic 1931 film, and so he had to design a new look for the creature bearing no resemblance to the Boris Karloff original created by Jack Pierce. Made on a low budget the movie was a tremendous financial success and reportedly grossed more than 70 times its production cost during its original theatrical run. Featuring excellent photography by Jack Asher, and a ground-breaking portrayal of Baron Frankenstein by Peter Cushing who would go on to dominate the series in five more films, this might not be the most frightening of movies but it remains a sterling exempleof the best of everything that made Hammer so special.

The creator VS the the created, Cushing VS Lee

[one9eighty · 7/10 · 31 January 2019]

A great Hammer film which puts Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee together in their first horror film. This is Hammer studios first colour horror film, and their first foray into Frankenstein films. A real ground breaker and one of the goriest films of its time with blood and guts in colour on screen for audiences to see for the first time. In fact this was a first cinema outing for Cushing, who up until this film had mainly been on TV rather than taking the lead in a cinematic release. Christopher Lee too was lucky to get the role as it was originally offered out to Bernard Bresslaw, but his agent asked for too much money.

You are probably already aware of the Frankenstein story - if not, shame on you and go climb back under the rock from whence you came. Cushing plays a charming and somehow sinister Dr Frankenstein. Lee plays his menacing creation that seems threatening without much emotion hidden behind the eyes. The monster is far removed from the Boris Karloff version you may have seen, this is because Universal threatened to sue if it detracted from their version, or impeded on their image rights in any way. In fact, the script that Terrence Fisher directed from too was an 'adapted' version, the story had to be not only far removed from Universal's versions, but Jimmy Sangsters who came up with the script, had to make it remote from Mary Shelley's source material too - a retelling and 'adapted' version that would be Hammer's alone. An 'adapted' re-hash is an all too familiar concept now, but it was a fairly unique concept back then. The film is scattered with both recognisable and regarded actors of the time (such as Robert Urquhart and Hazel Court). Everyone delivers a top class performance.

Instead of focussing on the monsters creation, we are treated to the character development of the doctor that pieced it together. Showing how obsession takes over after a scientific breakthrough starts the ball rolling on the topic of life and death. Condemned to death and locked up waiting his execution, Dr Frankenstein decides to tell his story to anyone that will listen. His audience is a man of the cloth, but Frankenstein knows he's not going to believe him; instead it's an exercise in venting his frustrations to the religious man that come to his cell. The story unfolds in flashback, showing Frankenstein's life from adolescence to manhood, highlighting some of the things which shaped him along the way.

The pace of the film may seem a little stop/start but if you read into the background of the film and how it was pieced together (much like the monster in it) you'll understand why there are times where it could be quicker. This was never really intended to be the big hit that it became, it was more of a stopgap between Quartermass/SciFi films - who knew it would go onto define the studio! If you go and read about this, why not expand your knowledge and read into how this film came about by accident, and how it nearly never got made, and ultimately how it redefined the horror genre and gave life to small studio from the UK that was just getting started after the success of sci-fi/horror film. The story behind the film is as fascinating as the story within the film.

This is one of my favourite Hammer films - it's far from their best film as a studio, but it's still a good film, and one of the better of the Frankenstein films (they made 6 more). I admit that by today's blockbuster epic standards it looks really dated with it's almost technicolour (actually, it's Eastmancolour) shades, but it's still a quality film using narrative and dialogue to scare as much as the monster itself. It could be faster in its delivery, as I've mentioned there are time it drags a little, but once it gets going it really does. Ultimately forgiven for the impact it had on the landscape. 7 out of 10.

Well done but not quite up to the level of Universal's gold standard

[sme_no_densetsu · 7/10 · 7 April 2008]

There have been many film adaptations of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" over the years, stretching back more than a century at this point. Apart from Universal's "Frankenstein" and its immediate sequel, "Bride of Frankenstein", Hammer's "The Curse of Frankenstein" is probably the most celebrated entry in that long line of films.

Arriving at a time when traditional gothic horror had mostly been brushed aside by the newfound fears of the atomic age, "The Curse of Frankenstein" revitalized the horror genre and ushered in a new wave of fright flicks, much like Universal's "Frankenstein" had done almost 30 years earlier. The movie's success was also instrumental for Hammer Films, who quickly became synonymous with the horror genre.

As for the movie itself, like Universal's version of the story, it doesn't necessarily hew that closely to Mary Shelley's original novel. The key elements are in place, though, and Jimmy Sangster's script is intelligent without letting the film get dragged down by the weight of the story's philosophical underpinnings. At a slim 82 minutes, the plot moves fairly briskly and doesn't overstay its welcome.

The acting is above par for a horror movie with Peter Cushing delivering a standout performance as Baron Frankenstein and Robert Urquhart admirably providing the film's conscience. Although the character of Frankenstein's monster isn't developed as well as I would have liked, Christopher Lee did pretty well in the role. That being said, it's basically a foregone conclusion that he'd be hard-pressed to measure up to Boris Karloff's legendary portrayal. Hazel Court rounds out the main players with a decent performance in a fairly bland role as Baron Frankenstein's betrothed.

From a technical standpoint, the movie shows a level of craftsmanship that's more than adequate for a production of this type. While Hammer didn't have the resources of a Hollywood studio like Universal they made good use of what they had at their disposal. The sets and art direction are convincing and the special effects are ably executed. The direction & score may not be especially noteworthy but they both got the job done.

Overall, I think that the "The Curse of Frankenstein" does enough things right to make it stand out from the earlier efforts by Universal. It's essential viewing for horror fans, particularly due to its place in history, but more casual moviegoers may not be as enthusiastic about it.

Baron Cushing - Resurrector Of The Dead

[Witchfinder-General-666 · 9/10 · 23 May 2008]

"The Curse Of Frankenstein" of 1957 truly is essential for every Horror lover to see. While this first entry to Hammer's ingenious Frankenstein series is not one of my personal favorite Hammer Productions, it were this film and the following "Horror Of Dracula" which basically redefined British Horror, and represent everything the Hammer Studios stand for. Mad Science and the Resurrection of the dead have always been among my favorite Horror topics, and Hammer's Frankenstein films starring the great Peter Cushing are among the most memorable films in the field. My personal favorite film in Hammer's Frankenstein franchise is still the brilliantly insane "Frankenstein Created Woman" of 1967, but this first film is also brilliant, and furthermore gets the benefit of originality. Sometimes in cinema, actors are predestined to play a certain role - and this is definitely the case with Peter Cushing here. Nobody else could have played the role of the obsessed Baron Victor Frankenstein as Cushing did. When it was Hammer's Dracula that made Christopher Lee the Horror icon he is, it was "The Curse Of Frankenstein" and its sequel that rose Peter Cushing to immortal fame.

Hammer's Baron Frankenstein is more (insanely) dedicated than the character is in the novel or any previous film, and Cushing is brilliant in the role, which he played six times altogether. While he is not necessarily a villain as such (he does what he does with the strong conviction of doing what's necessary for the benefit of mankind), Victor Frankenstein gets more and more dedicated to his obsession of creating artificial life and resurrecting the dead in this first "Frankenstein" film from Hammer, and, at a certain point, he is willing to do anything in order to achieve his goals. At first he is still supported by his assistant and former teacher Paul Kempe (Robert Urquhart) who gets more and more frightened by his former student's obsessive behavior...

I do not want to give too much of the plot away, but I guess everybody knows what the story of Frankenstein is about. As the story of Dracula, the Frankenstein story got its haunting Hammer-style makeover. From today's point of view the graphic depiction of violence and gore in the film may seem tame, but back in the day the early Hammer Classics "Curse Of Frankenstein" and "Horror Of Dracula" were some of the first films to actually show red blood, some gore and explicit violence. Both classics were directed by Terence Fisher, easily the most important Hammer director, and, as usual for hammer, the film is greatly photographed in eerie Gothic locations. Gothic castles, foggy grounds and a constantly gloomy mood - this is what makes a lot of the greatness of the world of Hammer. Peter Cushing truly is one of the greatest Horror icons ever, and Hammer's Frankenstein series probably earned him this deserved reputation more than anything else. The monster, by the way, is played by a fellow Horror icon, with whom Cushing formed the most awesome Horror-duo in a whole lot of films, none other than the great Christopher Lee. Hazel Court is a beauty in the female lead, the only tiny negative aspect is the fact that Robert Urquhart's character of Paul sometimes annoys with his moralistic nagging (also, while he is supposed to be Frankenstein's teacher, Urquhart clearly is years younger than Cushing). That does in no way lessen the greatness of this Hammer Classic, however. All said, "The Curse Of Frankenstein" is a true British Horror Classic, which every Horror fan must see, and no film buff in general should miss!

Cushing Is The Best Thing About The Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 11 February 2010]

Peter Cushing is the main thing this film has going for itself. Cushing plays "Victor Frankenstein" in this re-make of the famous early 1930s classic. (You wonder how many Frankenstein and Dracula remakes there were?) Christopher Lee, the other classic-era British horror film star of his generation, plays the monster.

Hammer Horror films have been highly-regarded over the years, and justifiable so in my opinion. Most of them are very well done. This film has historical value as it was the first of Hammer films. My favorite is "Horror Of Dracula," made the following year (1958) with Cushing as "Dr. Van Helsing." I don't think this film measures up to that one because it doesn't have the suspense, nor does it have the "atmosphere" a Frankenstein movie should possess.......but it does have a great performance by Cushing. He is the show here, make no mistake.

What was weird was that monster didn't look much like a monster. They didn't do much in the makeup department in this film. Maybe that's more realistic as I never did understand why the monster had to have this huge forehead, etc. Heck, here the monster looked more like Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones, or even Mick Jagger, with big acne problems. He wasn't a bad looking guy and certainly didn't deserve the abuse he took (the monster, not the Stones.)

The ending of this movie is very unsatisfying, not that any of the Frankenstein movies have a happy ending, but this was particularly unappealing to me. You see, I am not a believer that "two wrongs make a right" which is what "the answer" seems to be to the story's dilemma at the end.

A fantastic kick-start to one of the greatest movements in horror

[tomgillespie2002 · 8/10 · 14 December 2014]

26 years after Universal Studios and James Whale hit gold with both critics and audiences alike with their interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic novel Frankenstein, another production studio was about to reinvigorate the horror genre with a vastly different take on the same book. Hammer Studios seemed to know something no-one else did - that audiences had a thirst for blood. The critics may not have appreciated it at the time (though they certainly do now), but the paying audiences lapped up The Curse of Frankenstein's amped-up levels of gore and Gothic atmosphere.

The film begins with Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) in a jail cell awaiting his execution for an unknown crime. He calls for a priest who he tells his story to. Victor was only a child where he became a baron and inherited his family's estate, and employed his teacher, Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart), to teach him everything there is to know about the science of anatomy. Years later, Victor and Paul manage to bring a puppy back to life, much to their delight. While Paul is thrilled with their achievement, Victor is unsatisfied and longs to create a human life of his own.

Anyone hoping for a faithful re-telling of Mary Shelley's novel will be sorely disappointed. Director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster (director of Hammer's Fear in the Night (1972)) makes the film more about Frankenstein than his creation. While the novel focused more on the tragic nature of the Creature's creation and treatment, the film portrays Victor not only as a flawed and arguably misguided visionary, but a stone-cold murderer, pushing a scientific genius to his death in order to have his superior brain for his creation. The brain is damaged in an alteration between Victor and Paul, so the creature is of low intelligence anyway.

For all the 're-imaginings' of Frankenstein, this is certainly the best I've seen. The diversions from the source material make it a different experience entirely, and one simply to be enjoyed rather than to ponder it's deeper meanings. Cushing's performance is incredible, adding a gravitas to his character even when the movie dips into camp. Christopher Lee, playing the Creature and in his first of many appearances for Hammer, puts in an impressive physical performance and manages to invite sympathy with no dialogue at all. Hazel Court also appears as Victor's cousin Elizabeth, in what is little more than the obligatory female role. A fantastic kick-start to what would be one of the greatest movements in horror.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

The film that put Hammer well and truly on the map.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 14 January 2017]

Locked in a cell, an hour away from the guillotine, Baron Frankenstein recounts to a priest how he built a creature from human body parts and successfully brought it to life.

The Curse of Frankenstein might not be one of my favourite of Hammer's Frankenstein films—I prefer the studio's later entries in the series with their lurid gore and overt sexuality—but I still hold it in extremely high regard for helping to revive the flagging horror genre (sci-fi having dominated much of the fifties) and for being the first film to team British horror icons Peter Cushing (as Baron Victor Frankenstein) and Christopher Lee (who plays his creation).

Working with a limited budget, director Terence Fisher stages much the action within Victor's home and laboratory, his film very much a character driven piece, with Cushing's obsessed scientist to the fore and Lee's monster taking a back seat. Thankfully, Cushing is such an accomplished performer that he is able to carry the film virtually by himself, delivering a truly chilling turn as a genius driven to unspeakable acts by his obsession. Lee, on the other hand, simply gets to stumble around a bit (he would get his chance to really shine the following year in Hammer's Dracula).

6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for Hazel Court as the Baron's cousin Elizabeth, who adds some welcome glamour to proceedings.

One of the greatest horror movies of all time.

[warlorde · 10/10 · 9 March 2003]

What more can be said? A milestone in horror movie history with gore, great acting, atmosphere, direction and music. I just can't understand how a monumental film such as this only rates a 6.6. Unbelievable. Undoubtly the ones who voted low on this movie were looking for sex or crappy rap music. Those people should stick to looking for their brains under a moss-covered rock.

Truly great performances by Lee and Cushing as well as the other actors and actresses.

10 out of 10. Watch this horror movie, it's a must.

Horror Gets a Hammer

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 26 May 2014]

According to the opening credits, "More than a hundred years ago, in a mountain village in Switzerland, lived a man whose strange experiments with the dead have since become legend. The legend is still told with horror the world over… It is the legend of… The Curse of Frankenstein." Presently, shortly before his execution, titular mad scientist Peter Cushing (as Victor Frankenstein) tells his story to a priest… In flashback, we see the wealthy young baron hire longtime partner Robert Urquhart (as Paul Krempe). The experimenters bring a cute puppy back to life, and Mr. Cushing decides a human should be next. He wants to create a man of extremely high intellect, but things don't always go according to plan...

From England's Hammer Movie Productions, this re-make of Mary Shelley's classic "Frankenstein" has a style quite different than the model popularized by Hollywood's Universal Studios. The film is more than a little ragged; but the setting, color cinematography and a monstrous lead performance by Cushing work remarkably well. Displaying ample cleavage, beautiful fiancée Hazel Court (as Elizabeth) wears clothing that looks ready to slip off in an instant. A lesser figure could never have held up her dresses. Finding a fantastic niche in the genre, "The Curse of Frankenstein" and follow-ups are nicely directed by Terence Fisher. His fresh approach heralded an era of Hammer horror re-makes and sequels.

******* The Curse of Frankenstein (5/2/57) Terence Fisher ~ Peter Cushing, Robert Urquhart, Christopher Lee, Hazel Court

Ultimately unsympathetic

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 5/10 · 4 December 2004]

**Major Plot Spoilers**

I've always been partial to a good Hammer horror, and this was notoriously the film that began it all, launching Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Hammer itself into international fame on the back of two million pounds of box-office receipts from a fifty-thousand-pound outlay. It was certainly interesting to see Cushing playing a man in the prime of life instead of the spry, silver-haired intellectuals of his later career; but unfortunately this was probably the least enjoyable Hammer I've seen so far.

I think the main problem -- and this may be an entirely personal reaction -- was that there simply wasn't the necessary tug of sympathy for the characters present in so much of Cushing's later work, even the minor shockers from the Seventies like 'Legend of the Werewolf' or 'The Ghoul'. This Baron von Frankenstein is not merely an obsessive blinded to the potential outcome of his work; he's a cold-blooded seducer who manipulates his low-born mistress to her death, kills a man in order to obtain his his brain for the Creature and blackmails his friend with threats to his own fiancée.

On the other hand, the servant girl Justine -- in a confusing and surely unnecessary plot twist -- attempts to get the Baron to marry her by the convoluted method of getting herself pregnant by another man, supposedly his moral superior (but she still wants to marry Frankenstein). Cousin Elizabeth spends all her time trying to get him to give up his research to prove his devotion, and Victor's former best friend washes his hands of all responsibility but can't take his eyes off his friend's fiancée for long enough to bring himself to leave the shelter of his roof. The Creature itself is a homicidal lunatic that murders without apparent reason or intelligence and can evoke no more sympathy than its creator -- how such a limiting and limited role could have proved an asset to Christopher Lee's career seems something of a puzzle.

The musical score, which I had heard praised, appeared to have little distinction or subtlety, simply telegraphing every move before it was made, and the off-stage peasants, commended for their ingenious budget-saving non-appearance, were absent beyond even the promised torchlight reflection. Conspicuous by their intrusion, however, were the blind man and his grandson, whose sole purposes in life were to be menaced and murdered by the Creature (apparently without consequence) and who aroused a good deal of unfortunate giggling in the auditorium.

There is a good deal of play with body parts, acid baths, and the like, which may have thrown out a challenge to the censor but is not in itself horrific. Indeed, as presented, it becomes rather difficult to sympathies with Paul's violent moral revulsion of feeling and insistence that the work will inevitably "lead to evil", and his constant nagging comes across as merely unattractive. As a horror film, it derives its few terrors from stock situations like the underclad woman alone in the dark room with an unseen menace, and these, like the blind man scene, are largely robbed of their effectiveness by being over-milked. Considered as a story in its own right, it fails to elevate its characters beyond the one-dimensional or to capitalise on the ironic potential of the various conflicts: e.g. it is Paul's actions that create the disaster he is claiming to prevent, and Elizabeth is bound by gratitude to one man but attracted to the other.

The most horrific scene for me was the merely human drama at the end, where Paul deliberately lies in order to condemn his friend to death. (For what, it is never made clear. I'd assumed it was for the accidental shooting of Elizabeth while attempting to hit the Creature on the roof, but she is subsequently revealed as alive and well.) But since I suspect this was supposed to be regarded in the light of righteous justice catching up with the Baron to provide the moral to the tale, I doubt that the revulsion of this scene can be laid to the screenplay's credit. The whole relationship between the two had potential that was largely ignored in favour of simplistic carping.

In my experience, the late Hammer horrors like 'Hands of the Ripper' tended to have a humanity and style that compensated for special effects on the cheap. 'Curse of Frankenstein', for all its financial success, suggests to me that they hadn't yet established their winning formula.