Arguably the weakest entry in the series, "The Evil of Frankenstein" is still a hell of a lot of fun to watch. Peter Cushing, the elder statesman of English horror films, turns in a particularly vigorous performance as the relentlessly demonized Baron Victor Frankenstein, while Peter Woodthorpe is excellent as the sulky, sleazy stage hypnotist who gains control of Frankenstein's resurrected creature (Kiwi Kingston). Sure, there's a heavy reliance on formula, but this is a series of films about a doctor who creates misshapen monsters and animates them with electricity, after all. What is the actual difference between a critically acclaimed movie like "The Revenge of Frankenstein" and a 'bad' movie like this one? Is the distinction as sharp as you've been led to believe?

Ultimately I have to judge films--especially genre pictures--according to whether or not I find them enjoyable, and I've been enjoying this one for decades. When was the last time you saw a horror movie as competent (if unspectacular) as "The Evil of Frankenstein"? The fact that it's regarded as a lesser installment in Hammer's Frankenstein franchise merely underscores the high standard of the studio's output. Forget the critical potshots and allow yourself to be entertained :)

The Evil of Frankenstein is directed by Freddie Francis and written by John Elder. It stars Peter Cushing, Sandor Eles, Peter Woodthorpe and Katy Wild. Music is by Don Banks and cinematography by John Wilcox.

Returning back to Karlstad after a ten year absence, Baron Frankenstein (Cushing) hopes that the town has forgotten his monstrous impact on the town previously. With assistant Hans (Eles) in tow, it's not long before the Baron stumbles upon his monster creation frozen in a glacier of ice...

Anything they don't understand, anything that doesn't conform to their stupid little pattern...they destroy.

With Hammer Films finally getting friendly with Universal Pictures, The Evil of Frankenstein forgets the two previous Hammer Frankenstein movies and goes for what is in all essence a rehash of Karloff's stomping days. That's not necessarily a bad thing if one can judge the film as a standalone movie? But creativity is sparse and it's left to the cast and technical department to create an above average Frankenstein movie.

Yep, it sure does look nice, with impressive costuming and well dressed sets, it's a Hammer movie for sure. Bank's score is also classic Hammer strains. Cushing gives his usual dose of quality, though he is a touch restrained here in terms of committed emotion, and you have to smile at his James Bond moment during one getaway scene while a buxom babe looks on with kinky lustation in her eyes. Elsewhere it's a safe turn of cast performances, with future Dad of Delboy Trotter, Woodthorpe, camping it up as the scheming and revenge fuelled hypnotist Zoltan, Wild isn't asked to do much, and neither is Eles, who seems to be in it for some continental flavour. Francis is no Terence Fisher, but he has a good visual flair and he can construct a very good action sequence, such as the excellent finale here.

There's problems for sure; familiarity of Frankenstein movies in general hurts, the make up for the creature is very poor, one back screen projection sequence is very cheap even by low grade Hammer standards, while some of the Baron's reactions to situations don't bear up to logical scrutiny. It's not hard to understand why it's a very divisive movie amongst the Hammer Horror faithful. Yet its merits hold up well and it never once sags or becomes tiring. Cushing, Wilcox and that finale ensure it's a decent night in by the fire. 6.5/10

The original Hammer Films Frankenstein films (such as THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN) were exceptional films. While they were quite different from the old Universal horror series, they breathed new life into the tales with imaginative writing and exceptional twists--along with darn fine acting. However, by 1964, the series frankly was looking awfully stale and cheap--and this film is only worth seeing if you are a true Hammer devotee.

I was very surprised when this version of the Frankenstein story starred (as usual) Peter Cushing BUT the flashback scenes were not taken from these earlier films but were made especially for THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN. In hindsight, I can see why they had to do this because in this third installment, the monster makeup was just god-awful--looking like a cheap papier-mâché mask and blue cheese! At the same time, the flashback scenes completely contradicted the earlier films--making me pretty mad because I so liked these other films!

The plot, as usual, involves the crazed doctor and his assistant once again trying to bring life to dead things. However, their quest is interrupted when they accidentally happen upon the original monster frozen in the mountains. This story element was actually borrowed from HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN--when the monster was found in ice and most of the film revolved around the mad doctor's attempt to revive the beast. What made it a little different was that this time, the doctor is assisted by an evil hypnotist(!) who is able to use his powers to revive the monster. What a cheesy plot element! But, at least it was pretty exciting when the hypnotist later ordered the monster to do bad things--this was pretty cool.

However, this isn't the weakest story element. You see, the Doctor and his assistant must sneak back into town since the Doctor was banished under penalty of death from returning ten years earlier. Yet, shortly after they arrive, the Doc picks a fight with the mayor and begins screaming and yelling and acting like a deranged fool (even though his character never acts like this before or after in the film). He even runs to the police and demands they arrest the mayor!! Could Frankenstein be THAT stupid?! What was all his talk about "sneaking into town" and "let's not arouse their suspicions"???!!!

So, because the plot is so silly, there isn't much new that seems worth while AND because the makeup was so incredibly bad, I find this film to be just passable entertainment and nothing more. A poor imitation of earlier great Hammer films. Fortunately, in later Frankenstein films, Hammer and Cushing's efforts were greatly improved--making this a strange and poor aberration.