The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

Hammer’s seminal Frankenstein movie is just as much a departure from Mary Shelly’s novel as the Universal “classic”, but for me it doesn’t grate half as much.  That’s not to say there aren’t departures from the text or silly points in the plot, but at least there are no huge leaps or ridiculous name changes, and it starts with the right idea of Victor telling someone about his terrible deeds.

At the heart of it all is a, yet again, superb Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein; and in particular his banter with Robert Urqhuart’s Paul Krempe is excellent.  Unfortunately Hazel Court’s Elizabeth is rather a wet fish; your usual Hammer damsel, rather than the relatively strong character she should be.  Christopher Lee is good as the creature, though as he is silent (like Boris Karloff’s monster), it’s hard to fully appreciate him.  Strangely when we first see the creature, he looks more like Al Pacino than Christopher Lee!  Even the young Frankenstein (not the Gene Wilder one; he actually looks a bit like Armando Ianucci) is actually very entertaining, it’s a shame there isn’t more of him.

The Curse of Frankenstein is very well paced, packing in enough plot while still allowing Cushing and Lee to chew the scenery (if a mute part can chew scenery).  While not the whole story and not a patch on Danny Boyle’s stage production, Hammer’s version is very entertaining and very watchable thanks to the strong main cast.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Dracula (1958)

Having previously been disappointed with Tod Browning's Dracula (1931) I was very keen to see Terence Fisher's vision starring a young Christopher Lee and a slightly less young Peter Cushing.  I wasn’t disappointed.

Where Lugosi's Prince of Darkness has designs on moving to London (and Mina's "beautiful neck"), writer Jimmy Sangster shuns Stoker's source material to a degree and crafts a story similar to Nosferatu in that all the action takes place in Germany (Karlstadt, only a few hours coach drive from Castle Dracula).  The familiar names are all there, but the relationships have often changed. Jonathan Harker is engaged to Lucy, who is Arthur's sister and Mina is Arthur's wife!  Dracula and Van Helsing are of course the same, but despite all these changes they do not grate the same way it did in Frankenstein (1931).

It goes without saying that Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are fantastic.  Despite Dracula being one of the roles most synonymous with Lee, this is actually his 33rd film (I think) which is fairly incredible!  Where Lugosi was enigmatic and stilted, Lee is charismatic and full of energy; his Dracula is very active and physical which leads to a very dynamic movie as he desperately tries to stop Van Helsing.  Lee actually says very little.  Beyond welcoming Jonathan Harker to his castle and getting him settled in, he doesn’t actually say anything.  Which surprises me more that apparently he refused to say any lines in the script for Dracula: Prince of Darkness, as his Dracula is hardly verbose anyway.

Of course, where Lee is very physical, Cushing can match it.  Despite him looking not too far off Grand Moff Tarkin age, he is able to mix it with Lee in running around the excellent Gothic sets and fighting him off for a dramatic climax.  That’s not to say he is just “knees-bent running around”, most of the time he is the perfect Van Helsing using brain rather than brawn and displaying the same cold logic that he portrayed so well in Frankenstein Created Woman.  An honourable mention should go to Michael Gough (will later be Alfred in Tim Burton’s Batman films) who plays Arthur; he fits his story arc perfectly as a grieving family man who comes to realise the horror (slowly) of the situation and is then determined to protect those he loves.

I've already mentioned the Gothic sets, which are brilliantly created by production designer Bernard Robinson, who will become a Hammer Horror regular, working on the classics as well as Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Plague of Zombies, The Reptile and Rasputin: The Mad Monk to name a few.  Actually some of those were filmed back to back on the same sets; so he knew how to save some pennies too!  Terence Fisher’s direction is smooth and accomplished.  He seems to favour fluid tracking shots across a room, moving past pillars, columns and such like.  This way he shows off the great sets and creates a sense of scale that a static camera wouldn’t do; as well as mirroring the dynamic performances from the two main leads.

One of the happiest improvements over 1931 Dracula, is the moment Van Helsing explains that Dracula's ability to change into a bat or a wolf is a myth.  So no stupid rubber bats, or even armadillos (I'm still not sure why there were armadillos!) which instantly enhances the film’s credibility.  Great performances, smooth direction, smart story and wonderful sets.  I really enjoyed Dracula.  Now I’m looking forward to Hammer’s The Curse of Frankenstein and The Mummy.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

Having been disappointed with Universal's Frankenstein (1931), I was hoping that Hammer's Frankenstein Created Woman might tell the second half of Mary Shelly's excellent book.  Admittedly I haven't seen Hammer's The Curse of Frankenstein, but as FCW also stars Peter Cushing, I was hopeful.  This optimism was sadly misplaced.  "Woman" is created (completely off screen, we don't see a thing) from a girl who drowns herself because she's has just seen her lover guillotined for a crime he didn't commit.  Oh, and she now has the brain of said guillotined lover!  Queue some revenge killing against the toffs who initially framed lover boy.

It all sounds a bit Young Frankenstein, and it is.  Despite not really connecting with James Whale's film, at least there were great sets, tremendous lighting and a dramatic creation scene.  There is none of that here.  It's a point and shoot film with no obvious creative vision, no "It's Alive!" scene, and a ludicrous plot.  Peter Cushing does his best, and his complete disregard for anyone’s feelings and his contempt for superstitious folk (as long as his research is undisturbed) is fun, but it's not enough.  Where Christopher Lee is able to rescue Rasputin: The Mad Monk by chewing the scenery, Cushing’s more reserved style isn’t enough to animate the lifeless body of FCW.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

She (1965)

Starting off my Hammer boxed set is the, well, thriller I suppose; She.  Full title: She who must be obeyed!  Her Sunday name I guess.  Played by Ursula Andress, She (actual name Ayesha) is an ancient Egyptian who has hung around for a couple of thousand years waiting for her lover to come back to her (after she killed him for infidelity!).  Her lover is Leo (John Richardson), part of a trio of World War One vets (also including Major Holly - Peter Cushing, and his valet Job - Bernard Cribbins) who are based in Palestine and who go looking for the fabled city of Kuma.  If the story sounds kinda familiar, that's because it is!  It's essentially The Mummy with some gender reversal.

 
This certainly isn't anything special, but it's interesting and I wasn't bored by it; probably for the most part due to Peter Cushing.  When he's on screen, it's clear who the main actor is, even though he's not the main character.  Bernard Cribbins over-acts if anything, but is good; and John Richardson is okay.  Christopher Lee is also in the cast as the head priest of Ayesha's cult; but it's a shame that he doesn't really get much to do.  The camera work was fairly point and shoot, and the special effects were quite ropey (I couldn't tell if the ruined Egyptian city we were looking at at one point was meant to be a model or real (or whether the effect was a bad model or a worse matte painting!)).

                                                                 I dunno, you tell me.

Overall, quite an ordinary film with a re-hashed Mummy plot, but interesting enough not to be boring due to a pretty solid cast.