The Evil of Frankenstein - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Evil of Frankenstein Reviews

Page 1 of 5
February 4, 2017
So bad it's good! Worst makeup I've ever seen passed as good on a decently produced film.
October 7, 2016
This is an okay movie. It fails to live up to the standards of the previous entries in the series. The monster, designed to look more like the more familiar Universal creature, just doesn't have the expressiveness of Boris Karloff or Hammer's Christopher Lee. Cushing is still in good form. That, along with the set design, still make this one worth checking out.
½ December 17, 2015
Solid enough second sequel in the Hammer series based around Mary Shelley's characters, however it's nothing like the book with a brand new screenplay for this self-contained Peter Cushing vehicle.
½ October 29, 2015
Breaking continuity and, quite frankly, the quality of the previous two Hammer Frankenstein films, this third entry starring Peter Cushing isn't horrible, but it lacks something that made the first two so good. It ignores the second film and has a flashback to the first film which is fairly different to how things actually went down in that film. The Monster looks less like the Christopher Lee version, and more like a more decayed Universal monster, square head and all. Somehow, it looks cheaper and worse than the Boris Karloff version, like a small box is just plastered on the monster's head. It could be worse, it wasn't totally silly, but it is kind of a mess and it doesn't make sense with the (superior) films that preceded it.
May 14, 2015
Nothing memorable, but it does feel a lot like one of the classic Frankenstein films from the 40's. The monster's make-up is pretty bad, but the monster gets a nice amount of spotlight compared to the other Hammer 'stein movies. Decent characters, typical plot, and a bit of monster-fun.
May 6, 2015
The Evil of Frankenstein is another in a long series of Frankenstein movies by Hammer Studios starring Peter Cushing. It's certainly not the best of the bunch, but I give it some credit. It looks very good and was directed by the great Freddie Francis, part-time camerman and part-time director. He directed some of my favorite horror movies, so I have to give this movie a little more respect, even though it's not altogether great.
½ April 15, 2015
I only kept watching because Svengoolie hosted it and made it entertaining! Most of this was all build-up for the last exciting 30 minutes.
March 29, 2015
Stick with the original Frankenstein films from the 30s. This one was not only derivative but boring.
November 12, 2014
gets a star 4 it's pre-vue
½ December 9, 2013
I was charged with assaulting a police officer and crimes against god.

Baron Frankenstein is penniless due to his past fruitless ventures, which has left him homeless and ruined his name, but he will not stop him from continuing his research. Frankenstein works closely with his right-hand man, Hans, to continue developing his monster. He hopes to stimulate brain activity which will make his creature less of a monster and more in-line with his dream creation. Will Frankenstein get it right this time?

"What are you going to do with him now?"
"Cut out his heart."
"Cut out his heart?"
"Why not? He has no use for it."

Freddie Francis, director of Dark Tower, The Ghoul, Tales from the Crypt (1972), Dracula has Risen from the Grave, Son of Dracula, and The Creeping Flesh, delivers The Evil of Frankenstein. The storyline for this picture was just okay and a bit straightforward. I did enjoy the interaction between characters, the script was pretty good and the acting was above average. The cast includes Peter Cushing, Peter Woodthorpe, Duncan Lamont, and Katy Wild.

"What do you want me to do?"
"I want you to stimulate the brain."

I DVR'd this movie off a local channel that was airing a Frankenstein marathon on Thanksgiving night (I know, weird). This was just okay but I did thoroughly enjoy Peter Cushing's character and he did a wonderful job depicting Frankenstein. Overall, this is very average and I would only watch this if you're a die hard Peter Cushing fan (like myself).

"I'm not beaten yet. I will not let them beat me."

Grade: C
½ November 25, 2013
I only kept watching because Svengoolie hosted it and made it entertaining! Most of this was all build-up for the last exciting 30 minutes.
Super Reviewer
September 15, 2013
A poor addition to the Frankenstein legacy that Hammer enhanced. The film takes ages to get going and seems incredibly padded, even though it only runs at 1.5 hours. The make-up for the monster is terrible and the only redeeming thing about the film is Cushing's committed performance. The film still possesses the classic Hammer sheen that places it above most of their ouvre in the late 60's and 70's but those looking for a good Frankenstein film should check out Hammer's 'Curse of Frankenstein' or 'Frankenstein Created Woman' instead.
½ June 30, 2013
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964) -- [5.5] -- Hammer's third Frankenstein film (following "Revenge of Frankenstein") is more of a one-off than a sequel, having little to do with the films before or after it. Despite the return of Peter Cushing to the role of Baron Frankenstein and Hammer Films' terrific sets (the laboratory sets are especially good here), the story is too much of a re-tread to stand out in the series. The most original aspects of the film are the involvement of a deaf mute girl (Katy Wild) who seems to have an affinity for Frankenstein's monster (Kiwi Kingston), and a greedy carnival hypnotist (Peter Woodthorpe) who Frankenstein employs to wake the monster's dormant brain. The highlight is a climactic laboratory fire in which Peter Cushing appears to be doing his own stunts.
February 7, 2013
From Hammer, this was their third Frankenstein film, and this time, they were co-producing the film with Universal Pictures, which enabled them to reference the original make up for the Monster. It's a very silly film, but it has some good performances in it, some of it sags, which is a shame, plus the monster isn't much cop either, and it seems to break continuity with the previous film. Here, Baron Von Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) has returned to the town he was banished from years before. With his assistant Hans (Sandor Eles), they find Frankenstein's castle ransacked and in near ruins, but Frankenstein plans to start up his experiments again, and he finds his monster (Kiwi Kingston), perfectly preserved in a glacier. He tries to revive him, but although the monster shows the basic signs of life, the monster won't respond to anything Frankenstein does and remains inert. Frankenstein calls upon the services of mesmerist Zoltan (Peter Woodthorpe) to use hypnotism to awaken the creature from it's block, but Zoltan comes at a price. It's a good film, but it's hard to tell if it's following on from The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) or if it's a reboot or ignoring the sequel, you just can't tell with Hammer. But, Cushing is great as ever, but the show is stolen by Woodthorpe, giving a dastardly turn.
½ February 2, 2013
On the run, as always, Baron Frankenstein returns to his chateau in Karlstaad with his trusty assistant Hans to gather funds by selling his previous belongings, only to discover that the Burgomaster has taken them for himself! Frankenstein is run out of town once again when he confronts the corrupt official, where he finds his monstrous creation frozen but intact within a mountain cave. With the help of a local gypsy, Frankenstein revives the creature, but with disastrous results! After stealthfully avoiding copyright infringement by modifying the look of The Monster in previous films, Hammer was finally able to shape the creature after the original Jack Pierce designs with Universal International signed on as distributor, but the mangled results are far from stellar. The lavish set designs, on the other hand, never fail to impress in this third outing. Cushing, as Frankenstein, surprisingly assumes the role of the victim, a man of science who is surrounded by simpletons that only look to destroy his life's work. Director Freddie Francis distances his film from Fisher's earlier entries, making this a stand-alone sequel with no continuity to either of the ones that came before it. If anything, it is more likely to resemble many of the lower-budget sequels from the Universal FRANKENSTEIN films. THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN is competently acted and directed, but one of the more forgettable entries in the series.

-Carl Manes
I Like Horror Movies
½ November 15, 2012
This movies was doing alright in my books until the hypnotist got involved. Having the monster revived in that fashion was a good idea but the ultimate goals of the hypnotist we're just pointless and unbelievable! I have always loved the Frankenstein movies over Dracula and The Mummy, so this was quite an average one with a pretty decent ending!
½ November 3, 2012
I believe these would be real scientists...
September 24, 2012
This was probably the worst Hammer film I've seen yet. It wasn't good at all. The acting was bad, the special effects were horrible, and Frankenstein's monster's makeup was poorly done. I do not recommend this movie. It was such a waste of time. I do like Peter Cushing, though. But he made a poor choice in acting in "The Evil of Frankenstein".
April 6, 2012
Let me preface this by saying that I'm a HUGE fan of Hammer Studios horror films and the work of Peter Cushing. This has got to be the worst monster make-up job in film history. This botched incarnation will really make you appreciate the artistry of Universal's Jack Pierce.
March 29, 2012
Peter Cushing is awesome. He brings so much to the roles that he plays in the Hammer films. He's got such a presence on-screen. He brings an intelligence to the roles he plays as Dr. Frankenstein. His character is also charming, calculating, and athletic. He plays Frankenstein with a very short fuse and a great deal of victimization. Throughout this movie, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to pull for him or dislike him but either way, his Frankenstein is the best representation of the questionably intentioned doctor that's been done by any studio.
"The Evil of Frankenstein" doesn't work for me quite as well as Hammer Horror's "The Revenge of Frankenstein". TEoF starts out with a great scene of Cushing's Dr. F'Stein cutting the heart out of a still warm cadaver. This dissection is performed during the opening credits. We see Cushing grunting and pulling at the corpse, trying to remove the heart from its chest. This opening scene is so effective because Cushing is so good. It's definitely a gruesome scene, but there is absolutely no gore to be found. We don't see the results of Frankenstein's autopsy until he drops the heart into a tub of liquid. This is another great example of how well these old movies incite a horrific reaction without the mindless gore.
This movie actually has a monster, but I was underwhelmed with it. Mostly because the makeup job was so bad. The monster was a sympathetic enough character and I liked that this took a different direction with Cushing actually losing control of the situation and the monster itself. The castle and the town of Karlsbaad were satisfying creations and they brought a feel of authenticity to the whole affair.
The ending is all too abrupt, which seems to be the norm for Hammer. The ending wasn't bad, it was just too sudden.
Page 1 of 5