When I was first introduced to the world of Hammer-Amicus films, it was through the Third Hammer-Amicus Blogathon, hosted by Gill and Barry, from Realweegiemidget Reviews and Cinematic Catharsis. For that event, I reviewed the 1972 movie, Vampire Circus, which I thought was just ok. With the return of the aforementioned blogathon, I’ve decided to choose a Hammer-Amicus production that was recommended to me. Back when I wrote about Vampire Circus, Barry, from Cinematic Catharsis, suggested I check out several films, with 1957’s The Curse of Frankenstein being one of them. In my review of Frankenweenie, I mentioned how I haven’t seen many adaptations of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. To make up for lost time, I selected The Curse of Frankenstein for the blogging event!

Things I liked about the film:

The use of WarnerColor: When discussing “classic” cinema, there has been a debate over whether a film should remain with black-and-white imagery or if it should receive the Technicolor treatment. In my opinion, I’m glad The Curse of Frankenstein was released in WarnerColor, which I believe was the studio’s version of Technicolor. This creative decision allowed certain elements within scenes to appear vibrant! In Victor’s laboratory, various jars and bottles were scattered throughout the room. Liquid filled these bottles and jars, boasting bright colors like red, blue, even purple. These hues provided a nice contrast to the gray walls of the laboratory. The incorporation of color worked in the favor of the film’s wardrobe department! While working on his experiment, Victor wore a beige three-piece suit. He also wore a maroon neck scarf, which gave his outfit a pop of color. Another character who wore a mostly beige outfit is Elizabeth, whose gown was covered in a silky beige material. Her dress featured a light blue bow and sash, providing the gown with a nice color combination!

Historical accuracy: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was published in 1818. Reflecting on The Curse of Frankenstein, it seems like the movie’s creative team kept this fact in mind as the project looked and felt historically accurate! Remember when I mentioned Victor wore a three-piece suit with a maroon neck tie? His friend, Paul, also wore a three-piece suit. Victor even wore a pocket watch, an accessory that he occasionally used. The attire of both Paul and Victor highlighted how men dressed in the 1800s. Home décor is also reflective of when a story takes place. In the upstairs hallway and in the sitting room of Victor’s house, the walls were covered in intricate wallpaper. The wallpaper, which featured elegant patterns, showcases the artistic details that homeowners in the 1800s favored.

The acting: From what I remember of Mary Shelley’s story, Elizabeth’s presence was very limited. Her appearances in the book were so small, readers only became familiar with her. In The Curse of Frankenstein, Elizabeth was given more appearances in the story. This allowed Hazel Court, the actress who portrayed Elizabeth, to present her character as a friendly woman with a likable personality! One scene I liked was when Elizabeth is having a debate with Victor and Professor Bernstein. Professor Bernstein warns Victor about being consumed by science, also reminding Victor of how he should use science for good. Elizabeth adds to the debate by stating it would be better for Victor to go outside and get some fresh air. The way she suggests this to Victor is of kind encourage. A pleasant smile is shown on her face and she is comfortably sitting in an armchair.

In order to bring his experiment to life, Victor recruits the help of his friend, Paul. Because of how often Paul interacts with Victor, Peter Cushing and Robert Urquhart share several scenes together. What Robert’s and Peter’s performance have in common is how effective they utilized emotion! As Victor is conducting his first experiment, bringing a puppy to life, Victor’s face is filled with curiosity. Realizing his experiment was a success, his face slowly transforms into happiness. Victor is so happy, even his eyebrows move. Anytime Paul is upset over Victor’s obsession with his experiment, Robert consistently presents his face with a stern look. His voice also sounds stern, with a hint of anger detected. Based on their performance in The Curse of Frankenstein, I was impressed by Peter and Robert’s acting talents!

What I didn’t like about the film:

A prolonged appearance of Frankenstein’s creature: Within Mary Shelley’s novel, a key character is Frankenstein’s creature himself. Through interactions between the creature and Victor Frankenstein, readers are reminded of how some good intentions can lead to bad results, a message that overarches Mary’s story. In The Curse of Frankenstein, however, so much time is spent showing Victor creating the creature to the point where the creature doesn’t become alive until almost fifty minutes into this hour and twenty-three-minute movie. Even when the creature, portrayed by Christopher Lee, appears in the film, he is only on screen for a handful of scenes. He also doesn’t have many interactions with Victor.

Changed context: After watching Oliver! from 1968, I read Charles Dickens’ novel. Comparing the book to the film, I discovered how the creative liberties made to the adaptation changed the context of certain parts of the story. Since I have read Mary Shelley’s novel before seeing The Curse of Frankenstein, I took notice of how the 1957 movie changed the context of certain narrative parts. A great example is Victor’s motivation for creating the creature. Mary Shelley’s book explains how the inspiration for Victor’s experiment came to him at college. Victor was curious about whether he could, from a scientific perspective, create a human being out of nothing. The adaptation shows Victor being encouraged by his tutor to bring people back from the dead, after Victor and his tutor bring a puppy back to life. Looking back on The Curse of Frankenstein, it seems like some of these creative liberties were made just for the sake of it.

Some inconsistent parts of the story: There were some parts of The Curse of Frankenstein that were inconsistent. One example is Victor’s quest to create the creature. When his tutor encourages him to bring people back to life, Victor declares he will set out to create “the perfect man”, using the “hands of an artist” and the “brain of a genius”. Several scenes later, when Victor shows his friend, Paul, his progress, Paul is disgusted by what he sees. Victor states how the looks don’t matter, but how he brought the creature to life at all. But when Paul criticizes Victor for the creature’s lack of intelligence, Victor blames Paul for destroying the creature’s brain. If Victor’s goal was to bring the creature to life at all, why would he be so upset over the creature’s brain? Victor’s motivation for creating the creature should have been consistent like it was in the book.

My overall impression:

When a book or pre-existing story is being adapted into a form of visual media, there are bound to be creative liberties included in the final product. Sometimes, these creative liberties can improve upon the source material, making the piece of visual media more entertaining. But there are times when creative liberties are incorporated just for the sake of it. When I chose to review The Curse of Frankenstein, I was hoping the creative team behind the 1957 film would display a stronger understanding for Mary Shelley’s story, especially after seeing Frankenweenie. Instead, the film’s creative team relied so much on creative liberties, I found it distracting. What also didn’t help was prolonging the appearance of Frankenstein’s creature. Based on the movie’s appearance, it looks like the creative team cared about how their project was presented. I not only liked the acting performances, I also appreciate the project’s historical accuracy and the use of WarnerColor. But, unfortunately, The Curse of Frankenstein is another movie that emphasizes style over substance.

Overall score: 5.1 out of 10

Have you seen The Curse of Frankenstein? Would you like to see me review more films from Peter Cushing’s or Christopher Lee’s filmography? Please tell me in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen