Erik, "Pass the marmalade."

Sometimes I think it is better that some of these horror films didn't adhere too closely to the books. When such attempts were made, such as MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, the results were less than impressive. BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA was a little better (Keanu Reeve's wooden performance notwithstandin...

Read Mary Shelley's original yarn many years ago. It's left deliberately vague as to how the monster is assembled and brought to life but - he's eight feet tall! One passage, towards the end of the book, describes how Frankenstein (who's pursued the monster to the Arctic wilderness) spots him throug...

The colours in the Fifties Hammer movies were decried by critics as garish at the time, Red. But they're quite soft compared to the films that would follow in the Sixties and early Seventies.

REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a very good sequel to THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Ludicrously implausible, but great fun. Some critics even think it's a better film. How the Baron manages to achieve what must surely be his masterpiece (when the usual results of his experiments are ghastly monstrosities) i...

Yes, there are none of the grunts, snarls, or rapid movements that are characteristic of Karloff's portrayal. Mannerisms which gave me a kick, when I first saw the Karloff films, because they were so different to the popular conception of the monster.

Recall reading, in Dennis Gifford's Pictorial History of Horror Movies, Glenn Strange - quoted as saying: "Nobody helped anyone as much as Boris Karloff helped me. He coached me on the walk, and movements, and so forth, because I wanted to do this thing as close as possible to the way he did it...

W.G., Ditto re: Strange's incarnation of the creature being ". . . the most frightening of all"

Aw - the poor wee mite! In retrospect the movie seems to be a blueprint for the developement (or deterioration!) of the series. Karloff's monster, at times, seems to serve as a mere prop. And that battery of tests he's subjected to, wherein it's discovered he's the next best thing to George Reeves a...

Colin Clive ". . . neurotic and obsessed." - I'd agree with that. How about Basil Rathbone as Wolf von Frankenstein, W.G.? Rathbone's performance always struck me as a little over-ripe, just a bit too florid.

Hammer's Baron Frankenstein is a complete revision of the original character (brought splendidly to life by Peter Cushing). For my money Colin Clive presents an equally valid interpretation of the character in Universal's original FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. There's something compelling ...

Yes, I agree. Although it's a fair while since I saw it, FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED is quite a pleasing little entry in the series, with some good shock moments early on.

The continuity of Hammer's Frankenstein saga does go a bit awry with THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN - completely ignoring the first two movies in the series. And, it always puzzled me why Peter Cushing, in FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (his last outing as the Baron), was required to wear a blonde...

The continuity between THE WOLF MAN, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, HOF, and HOD, are handled so slickly, despite the absurdities, that they come off as satisfying entertainments. The contemporary MUMMY'S HAND sequels don't. A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN seems, even at the time, to have been regarded ...

I enjoy this. I rely on my memory a lot for these postings; and part of the fun for me is to see if I've got it right! It's a bit of a mystery to me just why the sequels are so sloppily plotted and executed, a real anti-climax after that slick and natty fun ride that is THE MUMMY'S HAND!