list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Curse of Frankenstein on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Curse_of_Frankenstein/7660/default.aspx Title: The Curse of Frankenstein
Year: 1957
Director: Terence Fisher
Plot: Curse of Frankenstein was the "breakthrough" picture for the fabled Hammer Studios. Told in flashback, the story centers around Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), a dangerously arrogant scientist who takes it upon himself to play God. Using portions of dead bodies, Victor fashions a synthetic monster (Christopher Lee) with a bad attitude. In a radical departure from the Frankenstein canon, it is the imperious Victor who orchestrates the film's two murders by "borrowing" the brain of a learned professor, then leaving his next victim at the mercy of the monster. In 1958, the film spwaned the sequel Revenge of Frankenstein. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 6
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:11:46 GMTThe Curse of Frankenstein1957Terence Fisher<a href=/films/7660/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Curse of Frankenstein</a> was the "breakthrough" picture for the fabled Hammer Studios. Told in flashback, the story centers around Baron Victor Frankenstein (<a href="/players/P____16338/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Cushing</a>), a dangerously arrogant scientist who takes it upon himself to play God. Using portions of dead bodies, Victor fashions a synthetic monster (<a href="/players/P____41362/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Lee</a>) with a bad attitude. In a radical departure from the Frankenstein canon, it is the imperious Victor who orchestrates the film's two murders by "borrowing" the brain of a learned professor, then leaving his next victim at the mercy of the monster. In 1958, the film spwaned the sequel <a href=/films/71126/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Revenge of Frankenstein</a>. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide1Slightly Tagged (1-5)624http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t22745hwxhl.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Curse_of_Frankenstein/7660/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2009/4/23/41702.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 4/23/2009 5:13:16 AM
Body: The Curse of Frankenstein(1957) For a film of its historical importance, The Curse of Frankenstein is surprisingly bad. The movie led to the third (and longest) wave of horror pictures, lasting until the early 70’s. There would be no Hammer horror without it, nor probably Roger Corman’s Poe films or even the founding of Amicus studio at all. But the picture itself is pretty bad, boring at just 83 minuets, failing to inspire even the smallest of amount of apprehension or chills in the modern viewer and lacking the intellectual depth of Mary Shelley’s novel. The most interesting parts of the film to note are where it differs from the 1931 James Whale version. Although the novel had been in the public domain, Universal strenuously controlled the rights to their version and Hammer had to be very careful to avoid even the slightest resemblance to that classic. The most obvious consequence of this is the role of The Creature (Christopher Lee) is minimized. Perhaps Hammer was afraid that creating an actual character would make the character to similar to Boris Karloff’s Monster, but the Creature (the main reason anyone is going to see the film) is given so little screen time that at times he seems a bit more like a robot than an actual person (or, to be specific, a collection of people). This is not to say that Lee does not do a good job, but this part should have been much more memorable. By far the best aspect of the film is the performance of Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein. Beginning here and continuing over the course of the series, Cushing creates a cold, tragic figure. We don’t sympathize with the doctor in the same we did with Colin Clive’s 1931 interpretation, but Cushing makes the character more plausible and psychologically real. This is someone who incapable of love or most other forms of human contact, a brilliant man who became so obsessed in his efforts to make a human being that he forgot how to be one. Despite Cushing’s splendid performance, the movie is still pretty empty, content to merely repeat the old Frankenstein standby of not playing God without bothering to really deal with the implications of that idea. Director Terrence Fisher, who make some of the finest horror films ever made, is having a hard time here and spends too much effort on gore instead of actually frightening imagery or archetypes (he would correct this in his next film, The Horror of Dracula). Aside from the appearance of the Creature, there is not a single surprise in the entire movie, we find ourselves waiting for it to be over. Despite the fact that picture is by contemporary standards pretty by the numbers, it’s important to remember just how surprising a color horror film with crimson blood in it was to 1950’s audiences. Even though the movie is difficult to make it through, the fact that it spawned so many wonderful movies can’t be overlooked, and on that level, this bad movie can be celebrated.
]]>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:13:16 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog4/23/2009 5:13:16 AMThe Curse of Frankenstein(1957) For a film of its historical importance, The Curse of Frankenstein is surprisingly bad. The movie led to the third (and longest) wave of horror pictures, lasting until the early 70&rsquo;s. There would be no Hammer horror without it, nor probably Roger Corman&rsquo;s Poe films or even the founding of Amicus studio at all. But the picture itself is pretty bad, boring at just 83 minuets, failing to inspire even the smallest of amount of apprehension or chills in the modern viewer and lacking the intellectual depth of Mary Shelley&rsquo;s novel. The most interesting parts of the film to note are where it differs from the 1931 James Whale version. Although the novel had been in the public domain, Universal strenuously controlled the rights to their version and Hammer had to be very careful to avoid even the slightest resemblance to that classic. The most obvious consequence of this is the role of The Creature (Christopher Lee) is minimized. Perhaps Hammer was afraid that creating an actual character would make the character to similar to Boris Karloff&rsquo;s Monster, but the Creature (the main reason anyone is going to see the film) is given so little screen time that at times he seems a bit more like a robot than an actual person (or, to be specific, a collection of people). This is not to say that Lee does not do a good job, but this part should have been much more memorable. By far the best aspect of the film is the performance of Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein. Beginning here and continuing over the course of the series, Cushing creates a cold, tragic figure. We don&rsquo;t sympathize with the doctor in the same we did with Colin Clive&rsquo;s 1931 interpretation, but Cushing makes the character more plausible and psychologically real. This is someone who incapable of love or most other forms of human contact, a brilliant man who became so obsessed in his efforts to make a human being that he forgot how to be one. Despite Cushing&rsquo;s splendid performance, the movie is still pretty empty, content to merely repeat the old Frankenstein standby of not playing God without bothering to really deal with the implications of that idea. Director Terrence Fisher, who make some of the finest horror films ever made, is having a hard time here and spends too much effort on gore instead of actually frightening imagery or archetypes (he would correct this in his next film, The Horror of Dracula). Aside from the appearance of the Creature, there is not a single surprise in the entire movie, we find ourselves waiting for it to be over. Despite the fact that picture is by contemporary standards pretty by the numbers, it&rsquo;s important to remember just how surprising a color horror film with crimson blood in it was to 1950&rsquo;s audiences. Even though the movie is difficult to make it through, the fact that it spawned so many wonderful movies can&rsquo;t be overlooked, and on that level, this bad movie can be celebrated. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28922.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 5:25:35 AM
Body: The Curse of Frankenstien is note worthy for launching the Hammer Horror cycle, which resulted in some of the finest horror films (heck, finest movies) of the 50's and 60's. I first saw the film in high school, and was dissapointed, and watching the movie again now, I still am. It is a weak movie, badly written, boring and with a bland, pastel look. Although Mary Shelley's novel was in the public domian, Hammer had be excedingly careful to avoid similarties to the 1931 James Whale version, which was owned by Universal. Howver, it's debateble as to whether anyone involved with the production even read the book, because their are heavy differnces. Like Universal, the Creature (Christopher Lee) is still a mute monster, and there is a love story (not in the book) between Frankenstien's associate/friend (Robert Urquhart) and his cousin, Elizabeth (Hazel Court). The new changes are all for the worse: Dr. Frankenstien (Peter Cushing) is just plain evil in this movie, and the philisophic concerns of the book and archytple imagery of Whale's film is replaced by the lowest form of horror, gross out gags. Cushing and Lee are of course both great actors, but neither is allowed to show thier range, with Lee as a glorified zombie and Cushing having to play a one-deminsional cartoon character. Cinematograhper Jack Asher and director Fisher, who would use the muted tones of Eastmancolor to great effect in The Horror of Dracula, clearly hadn't yet figured out how to make an effective image with the technique. It might be said that The Curse of Frankenstien is a black and white movie shot on color film. All this wouldn't be a problem if the movie was fun in a stupid kind of way (like Scars of Dracula) but it's just plain boring. It doesn't say anything, does make you feel anything, and doesn't even look good. It would spawn a lot of more enjoyable movies (including the masterpiece The Horror of Dracula, which used Lee and Cushing as well as most of the same crew), but the film itself is really a drag. Bummer. The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:35 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 5:25:35 AMThe Curse of Frankenstien is note worthy for launching the Hammer Horror cycle, which resulted in some of the finest horror films (heck, finest movies) of the 50's and 60's. I first saw the film in high school, and was dissapointed, and watching the movie again now, I still am. It is a weak movie, badly written, boring and with a bland, pastel look. Although Mary Shelley's novel was in the public domian, Hammer had be excedingly careful to avoid similarties to the 1931 James Whale version, which was owned by Universal. Howver, it's debateble as to whether anyone involved with the production even read the book, because their are heavy differnces. Like Universal, the Creature (Christopher Lee) is still a mute monster, and there is a love story (not in the book) between Frankenstien's associate/friend (Robert Urquhart) and his cousin, Elizabeth (Hazel Court). The new changes are all for the worse: Dr. Frankenstien (Peter Cushing) is just plain evil in this movie, and the philisophic concerns of the book and archytple imagery of Whale's film is replaced by the lowest form of horror, gross out gags. Cushing and Lee are of course both great actors, but neither is allowed to show thier range, with Lee as a glorified zombie and Cushing having to play a one-deminsional cartoon character. Cinematograhper Jack Asher and director Fisher, who would use the muted tones of Eastmancolor to great effect in The Horror of Dracula, clearly hadn't yet figured out how to make an effective image with the technique. It might be said that The Curse of Frankenstien is a black and white movie shot on color film. All this wouldn't be a problem if the movie was fun in a stupid kind of way (like Scars of Dracula) but it's just plain boring. It doesn't say anything, does make you feel anything, and doesn't even look good. It would spawn a lot of more enjoyable movies (including the masterpiece The Horror of Dracula, which used Lee and Cushing as well as most of the same crew), but the film itself is really a drag. Bummer. The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/zombie/MemberTagFilms.aspxzombie
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 152

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:55:30 GMT44965152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/experiment/MemberTagFilms.aspxexperiment
Number of films tagged: 728

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:11 GMT7282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/frankenstein/MemberTagFilms.aspxfrankenstein
Number of films tagged: 104

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 20

]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:37:28 GMT1041920Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/corpse/MemberTagFilms.aspxcorpse
Number of films tagged: 487

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 11

]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:11 GMT4871011Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hammer/MemberTagFilms.aspxhammer
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 20

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:08:57 GMT20820Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/madscientist/MemberTagFilms.aspxmadscientist
Number of films tagged: 431

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 10

]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:03:11 GMT431810Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/killingspree/MemberTagFilms.aspxkillingspree
Number of films tagged: 192

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Tue, 05 May 2009 13:12:46 GMT19244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/laboratory/MemberTagFilms.aspxlaboratory
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:01:43 GMT17035Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/choking/MemberTagFilms.aspxchoking
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:28:13 GMT1022Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bodyparts/MemberTagFilms.aspxbodyparts
Number of films tagged: 123

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:01:21 GMT12300Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/braintransplant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbraintransplant
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:14:32 GMT2500Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/humanbody-anatomy/MemberTagFilms.aspxhumanbody-anatomy
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:02:29 GMT7300Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/megalomania/MemberTagFilms.aspxmegalomania
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:53:40 GMT3100Tag