People are voting emotionally.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Plot—a young doctor is interned in an asylum for experimenting on buried corpses. At the asylum, he meets his hero Dr. Frankenstein who's head of the inmate department. Together, they set about Frankenstein's transplanting body parts pursuits.I guess I now know why I didn't go to med school. That brain removal scene may keep me from ever eating hamburger again. I haven't seen other entries in the Hammer Frankenstein series, so I can't make comparisons. But taken as a "stand alone", this film breaks a number of older conventions from Hollywood of the studio era. For example, I kept expecting young, handsome Dr. Helder (Briant) to undergo an attack of conscience and quit Frankenstein's (Cushing) infernal experiments. And surely run off with the sweetly virginal Angel (Smith) to a more ethical life. But he doesn't. Similarly, I was expecting the legendary doctor to get a comeuppance. After all, he connives in a number of deaths at the asylum. But like Helder, the two are allowed to resume their nefarious activities at movies' end. Now, there's a number of deeper questions raised by the screenplay's refusal to punish. Chiefly, how much guilt should attach to the doctors' experiments that after all could result in bringing good people back to life, even if in a cobbled together body. Is that a worthwhile goal or not. And, if so, what research methods are morally acceptable. Anyway, these are questions to think about, and raise the screenplay above the older horror movie conventions. This may not have been the writer's intention, but the morally ambiguous ending does remain suggestive.The 90-minutes is an appropriately ugly production. If asylum inmates weren't loony going in, they soon will be. The rooms and cells are claustrophobic. At the same time, the story's middle part drags a bit without developing but picks up in the final part. And what a burst of inspiration the Angel character is. I've seen nothing quite like her in years of movie watching. All in all, it's a rather thoughtful horror story, while also being big on blood and a caveman monster. I'm just wondering why I sometimes feel like the Neanderthal in the morning, all hairy and misshapen. Oh well, if that means the divine Miss Angel must be close by, I'll consider myself lucky.

This one is the last of the Hammer Frankenstein movies, released largely to indifference; it can now be seen to be a more traditional style Hammer Horror than the company had been churning out of late. Terence Fisher returned to the genre after an absence of four years to deliver an engaging, if occasionally pedestrian film, and this was to prove his final outing as a director.Peter Cushing, after having been ousted for a younger model in the form of Ralph Bates in The Horror Of Frankenstien (1970) a cheap-looking and badly scripted reboot, is back for one last turn as the Baron, looking considerably older and thinner. but giving his performance the same old gusto and attention to detail. Here Frankenstein is hiding away in an asylum, holding the institute's director in his power (due to a clever plot reveal towards the end) and free to continue his nefarious experiments.He's joined by a young doctor who's banged up on exactly the same charges as Frankenstein - sorcery for grave-robbing and corpse-stitching, and it isn't long before they are rummaging up a new creation. Shayne Briant's look is somewhat reminiscent of Percy Shelly, and he gives a good performance amidst a welter of stalwart British character actors. Madeline Smith is also a very engaging "Angel"; Dave Prowse, who'd played him in Horror, does much better as the monster here - shows you what a good director can do with actors - but it's Cushing's movie of course. Pity about monster's look - a cheapy hirsute approach that's almost as bad as Evil Of Frankenstein's monster.The blue-ray edition is surprisingly eye-popping (literally) in its gore quotient, the only previous DVD and video editions have been severely cut in the UK. I have seen this movie on television, video and DVD, and only the arterial vein in the mouth scene had made it past the censor - Cushing's idea, I believe. Here we have a more gruesome brain op sequence and the restored version of the monster being torn to pieces, as well as random shots of hanging victims, etc. But over all this drifts a spirit of subtle black humour, which is far more likable than the Carry On-style stuff in Horror Of Frankenstein.The last Frankenstein hurrah for Hammer then, and overall it's a decent effort. Personally I still prefer Curse, Revenge, Created Woman and Must Be Destroyed.

The movie is quiet like the not so good "Diamonds Are Forever" the last official Bond movie starring Sean Connery after a gap in the series which Bond was played by George Lazenby in OHMSS, a great movie though! Here we see good old Peter Cushing again as Baron Frankenstein for one last time although Cushing does not have half of his charm in previous movies but he still is considered the original Baron Frankenstein which gives movie a sense of originality to the audience.The movie appears to be a desperate departure from the cliché to lure audience in the fading market of mid 70s by briefly showing supposed to be gory but extremely cheesy surgery and slaughter scenes. Despite the incited curiosity, Such scenes were never shown in any of the prequels, a trend which should have been disappointing but it was not due to solid and very interesting stories. But in this very last, there was no solid screenplay and as a result, cheesy became cheesier and at some point became comic! a tragic failure for a horror movie. Now let's see what made this movie so bad... bad screenplay/story of course not the production. Production was as good as it was supposed to be.1. The monster's body came from a supposed to very strong criminally insane man. Well, what we saw was a beast straight out of "Beauty and the Beast", a creature which does not exist in reality.2. The monster was so disappointing but it leads to the second question. Why Frankenstein chose such body in first place? He always wanted to create a perfect man so why this monster? I know the answer. Frankenstein didn't want the beast but it was assumed by the producer that the audience wanted such monster.3. Apparently Baron had a hand problem so why not transplanting those supposed to be awesome hands to himself so he can do surgery again? Also as I remember, he changed his body once in the second movie so why not this time?4. Why baron wanted to transplant an insane genius's brain to his creation? to create an insane genius with the body of king kong?Terrible monster, Terrible story... it was a watchable movie just as part of the series. Do I feel that I wasted my time watching this movie?ABSOLUTELY

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell is directed by Terence Fisher and written by John Elder (AKA: Anthony Hinds). It stars Peter Cushing, David Prowse, Shane Briant, Madeline Smith and John Stratton. Music is by James Bernard and cinematography by Brian Probyn.Working under the name of Doctor Victor, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Cushing) is head physician at an asylum for the criminally insane. When Simon Helder (Briant), a gifted doctor himself and a follower of Frankenstein's work, is committed to the asylum on sentence of sorcery, the pair quickly form a partnership that will unleash Frankenstein's latest project…Actually made in 1972 but released two years later, Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell came out as Hammer Horror was limping along on its last legs. It was to be the last in the Frankenstein series and the last film directed by the brilliant Fisher. The reputation of the film is a very mixed one, certainly the box office returns and critical notices at the time point it out as a misfire. But what I have come to find is that staunch Hammer Horror fans have a kind regard towards the film, and I think that is fair given that it pretty much goes back to past glories, if not in scope, but in narrative and atmospheric toning.Yes it is viable to say that it's pretty much a re-jig of the earlier Revenge of Frankenstein, so in that it's a bit lazy, but I like to think that the return of Cushing, Fisher and Hinds suggests they were making one for the fans here, and it's not without merits in spite of familiarity and budgetary restrictions. It's great to have Cushing back as Victor, his personal life woes giving him a gaunt look that suits Frankenstein's character arc no end, this in spite of the daft wig he dons and a moment of Superman type heroics that doesn't quite sit right. Briant is ebullient and good foil in the mixed up surgeon stakes, and Smith adds the Hammer Glamour without having to strip naked.Why? Why? Why?But it's with the setting, the asylum and its characters, and the monster itself where it hits heights not acknowledged by the critics. Prowse's monster is a return to tragicreature territory, with the brain of a genius who wanted out of life, the hands of a skilled craftsman and a Neolithic monstrosity of a body, once the creature knows what he has become his sadness pours out in droves. Prowse doing a great job of conveying such tragedy with visual reactions and bodily movements. The mask unfortunately means when it speaks the lips don't move, but it's a fine Hammer creation regardless.The asylum inmates are in terms quirky and troubling, and with most of the shoot restricted to a couple of interior sets, the sense of being incarcerated is evident. Props are minimal, with a few of the good doctors odd looking tools and machines dotted around the place. The gore is used sparingly, but the impact is in the grand traditions of Hammer, while the back stories to Smith's mute and Asylum Director Adolf Klauss (Stratton) are edgy strands waiting to be pulled at in the name of Guignol entertainment. It's not a great send off for Doc Frank in Hammer world, not least because the finale lacks punch, but for loyal fans of the studio's creature features there is love and honest respect shown by the makers. 6.5/10