The Evil of Frankenstein

[Earth 2 Chris]

I've been making my way (very slowly!) through the movies on Universal's "The Hammer Horror Series Franchise Collection" DVD, and last night watched "The Evil of Frankenstein" from 1964. Overall, I thought it was a decent Hammer outing. Anything with Peter Cushing is worth watching. I'd watch him read a phone book for a hour and a half. I was puzzled at the continuity here. I've watched much of Hammer's series output out of order, and the only Hammer Frankensteins I have watched in my adult life prior to this one is the original "Curse of Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein Created Woman". I felt this one came in between those two, but "Evil" contains a retelling of the events of "Curse" that are quite different. This morning I found Hammer's official website: http://www.hammerfilms.com/ which has a nice chronology of their productions, with synopsis of each film. Seems like Hammer did a soft reboot with "Evil" after the events of the previous film "Revenge of Frankenstein" left the Baron's brain in a monster's body. Here the Baron created his monster, it went on a sheep-killing rampage, and was apparently shot and killed. The Baron was driven out of town for grave-robbing and the blasphemous act of trying to play God. No mention of a brain transplant along the way. I thought this was interesting, considering all the talk these days of movie (and even comic) series reboots, and how studios should handle them.

One thing that bugged me throughout this film: the monster's makeup was pretty shoddy. I couldn't decide if the production was doing this on purpose to make it look more horrific and it just didn't work, or they really had no clue what they were doing. A big come-down from Lee's distinctive, dead corpse look form "Curse". I can see they tried to emulate the classic Universal look, but no Universal Frankenstein monster had a flat-top head like Kiwi Kingston here. You could launch aircraft off that thing!!! I reminded me a lot of the much maligned "shoebox" design from the even more maligned "Dracula vs. Frankenstein" from the early 70s (you know, Afro-Dracula with a modulated voice, J.Caroll Naish and Lon Chaney, Jr. slumming it up?).

Peter Woodthrope as the drunken hypnotist Zoltan seems to be having fun with his role, chewing scenery left and right. Had this movie been made later in Hammer's cycle, I'm sure we would have bore witness to an elaborate rape scene with him and the deaf girl (Katy Wild). I'm glad we were spared it. The relationship between this girl and the monster was actually kind of touching, casting her as a more sympathetic (and atractive) Ygor-type character.

Now I really need to watch "Revenge" and see where that whole brain transplant thing goes...

Chris

[MIB41]

I tend to think the makeup in Evil was a failed attempt at getting somewhat closer to the Karloff makeup. But of course the execution was poor. Obviously they couldn't make him look exactly like him for copyright reasons. But I don't think they really had a strong idea on where to go as an alternative, so they softened the features so much that ultimately he was almost featureless. I guess they felt like the flat head was all they needed? But yes, that was a strange installment. Best forgotten compared to the established classics. I will always enjoy Curse. Hammer films in general were always something I got into more when I became a teenager. They unwittingly became my initial exposure to soft porn films. Hammer films put much of their focus into lighting bosoms or refilling buckets of blood.

[palitoy]

This was my first Frankenstein movie, oddly I saw it on Christmas eve.

The Kiwi Kingston make up was definitely an attempt to emulate the Universal look as these films were distributed through Universal. Hammer's "The Mummy' if I recall correctly is even Kharis.

I really like this movie and have had a life long crush on Katy Wild.

[Werewolf]

One thing that bugged me throughout this film: the monster's makeup was pretty shoddy. I couldn't decide if the production was doing this on purpose to make it look more horrific and it just didn't work, or they really had no clue what they were doing.

Unfortunate mix of low budget, limited time and lack of talent would be my guess. It's really not a bad movie. It's just a shame the make up looks like it was made out of paper mache.

[Earth 2 Chris]

The Kiwi Kingston make up was definitely an attempt to emulate the Universal look as these films were distributed through Universal. Hammer's "The Mummy' if I recall correctly is even Kharis.

Yes, this was a Universal release, as was "The Mummy" which in the first one at least, was Kharis. Hammer had distribution deals at one time or another with Universal, Columbia (now Sony) and Seven Arts (now WB). That's why the DVD rights are such a mess.

Hammer films in general were always something I got into more when I became a teenager. They unwittingly became my initial exposure to soft porn films. Hammer films put much of their focus into lighting bosoms or refilling buckets of blood.

That's part of their appeal, I'll admit. I first encountered them as a teenager, and I appreciated all the cleavage. Who am I kidding...still do. Later on, they went beyond cleavage. Vampire Lovers, anyone?

Unfortunate mix of low budget, limited time and lack of talent would be my guess. It's really not a bad movie. It's just a shame the make up looks like it was made out of paper mache.

Yep. I think my crude headtop made from Sprite carton, model magic and fright wig actually looked more convincing. But it is an enjoyable movie, nonetheless.

Chris

[fallensaviour]

The whole movie is actually on youtube rigt now.

[dr_cyclops]

As disappointing as the Frankenstein monster's make up was/is, I enjoyed this movie far more than Hammer's 'Phantom of the Opera'. That hambuger face reveal at the end was an extreme disappointment.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Phantom is on the same DVD set. It's next on my list.

Chris