The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) - film review

Sentenced to death for his diabolical experiments, Baron Frankenstein narrowly escapes his execution and sets up a medical practice in another town, working under an assumed name, Dr Stein.  The baron’s success at attracting patients makes him the envy of his rivals, one of whom, Dr Hans Kleve, realises his true identity and insists on working as his assistant.  Frankenstein has resolved to resume his experiments and, with Kleve’s help, he transplants the brain of his disfigured servant, Karl, into the perfect human body that he has assembled.  When the re-born Karl realises that Frankenstein intends making him an exhibit to show off his achievement, he escapes but, having sustained head injuries in a fight, he becomes a homicidal monster.  It looks as if history is about to repeat itself...

Having scored a major box office hit with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), the British film production company Hammer was not slow to deliver a thrill-making follow-up, with Peter Cushing reprising the role for which he is perhaps best remembered.  The story is a virtual re-run of the original Mary Shelley concept, but with one or two sly twists and a smattering of R.L. Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. To save money (something which Hammer was very good at), the film was shot back-to back with Dracula (1958), in which Cushing also starred, as Professor Van Helsing.

The Revenge of Frankenstein is widely regarded as one of the better entries in Hammer’s series of seven Frankenstein films.  Thanks to a well-constructed plot and some imaginative photography, the film manages to sustain its creepy graveyard mood and suspenseful tension throughout, starting with a guillotine execution and ending with a coda that is even more chilling.  Director Terence Fisher gets the best out of his meagre budget, achieving wonders with the cheap but well designed sets.  One other notable name on the credits is Jimmy Sangster, the scriptwriter.   He not only penned Hammer’s first Frankenstein film but would also write, direct and produce several other Hammer films, including the most off-the-wall entry in the company’s Gothic horror series, The Horror of Frankenstein (1970).

This film exemplifies what Hammer was particularly good at – scaring audiences by evoking gruesome images of bloodcurdling nastiness in their minds rather than by showing these on the screen.   The explicit horror content in The Revenge of Frankenstein is minimal – the only real shocker being a brief shot of a blood-dripping brain being dropped into a jar of water.  Far more frightening is the implied horror of what dear old Victor F. gets up to in his spare time – nonchalantly pinching body parts so that he can build himself a friend and show the world how clever he is.  Now if only his parents had given him a Meccano set when he was a boy...

Whilst the film excels in many areas, its greatest asset is clearly Peter Cushing.  The actor’s impeccable turn as the aforementioned Victor F. combines the silky charm of a quiet University professor with the cold unremitting ruthlessness and streak of obsessive mania that can only be found in mad fascistic dictators and P.E. teachers.  Interestingly, in Universal Pictures’ Frankenstein films of the 1930s, it was the creature (originally played by Boris Karloff) which was the focus of the narrative.  In Hammer’s films, by contrast, the Frankenstein stories all revolve around the scientist (our friend Victor) and the creature is if anything peripheral to the plot.  This could only have been possible if Baron Frankenstein was played by someone of exceptional charisma and talent – someone like Peter Cushing.

© James Travers 2009

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?