That is saying a lot, because I was underwhelmed- but did not hate- Evil of Frankenstein and Horror of Frankenstein, both of which were very well made and acted but both of which also had some lacklustre pacing, stories that took too long to set up, bad make-up for the monster and the monsters in both were lifelessly and un-menacingly acted. Evil of Frankenstein was guilty also of feeling like pre-existing plot lines(from Hammer) recycled and cobbled together and in a way that was muddled and was also contradictory, and Horror of Frankenstein being dialogue heavy and action starved and unfortunately the dialogue clumsily utilised some juvenile and misplaced humour.
The Revenge of Frankenstein however was a wonderful sequel and quite easily the best of the Hammer Frankenstein sequels. It also comes very close to outshining its predecessor The Curse of Frankenstein, which this viewer considers one of Hammer's finest hours(as well as their first) and does things different that comes off successfully with focusing more on Frankenstein than the monster and not making the monster misunderstood. Comparing the two together, I put them on the same level, something that is not achieved with most sequels. Like Curse there is very little wrong with Revenge, it's not as chillingly scary as Curse and once again(though nowhere near as fake as that of Evil and Horror) the make-up for the monster is not convincing, too normal-looking.
Like all of the Hammer Frankenstein and most of Hammer's filmography, Revenge looks absolutely great with typically outstanding Gothic set design, some of the richest uses of colour for any Hammer film, strikingly shadowy lighting and photography that is both handsome and atmosphere. Revenge also boasts a haunting score that compliments the atmosphere adeptly and is terrifically directed by Terence Fisher(who directed Curse as well), the only director of all four films to be fully up to the job; Freddie Francis for Evil and Jimmy Sangster for Horror have strengths elsewhere(Francis as cinematographer and Sangster as script-writer) but being out of their comfort zone. The script is on the same level in quality than that of Curse, there are no contradictory elements, it's not too talky and the humour is better used and of better quality. The script here is intriguing, witty and one of the most nuanced of any Hammer film and the humour is thankfully the very opposite of juvenile, instead it is of the darkly macabre and ironic kind and some of Frankenstein's lines were a real treat.
Revenge also has a completely engrossing story, it feels swiftly paced, has a lot of suspense and excitement, is filled with surprises and unexpected twists without being convoluted and gets to the point quicker than the sequels after it. While the film is never scary, it manages to be creepy. Like Curse(and Evil and Horror) it does focus more on Frankenstein than the monster, but that came off wonders because Frankenstein is a well-written and interesting character and the monster has more screen-time than the other three and is written in a more sympathetic way than the others as well. Not only is it compelling and atmosphere, but it also has heart and an emotional core, which Curse had but Evil and Horror didn't. The ending is brilliant and certainly not the anti-climax that was in Horror. And there is some excellent acting, with a once-again remarkable Peter Cushing in the definitive interpretation of Frankenstein. Francis Matthews is loyally impressionable and Michael Gwynn is astonishingly good as a poignant but subtly menacing monster, not as imposing of that of Christopher Lee in Curse but he brings more nuances and brings much more feeling and personality than Kiwi Kingston and David Prowse did for Evil and Horror.
Overall, a wonderful and almost superior sequel to one of Hammer Horror's best films, also ranking in the better half of their filmography. 9/10 Bethany Cox
The Revenge of Frankenstein however was a wonderful sequel and quite easily the best of the Hammer Frankenstein sequels. It also comes very close to outshining its predecessor The Curse of Frankenstein, which this viewer considers one of Hammer's finest hours(as well as their first) and does things different that comes off successfully with focusing more on Frankenstein than the monster and not making the monster misunderstood. Comparing the two together, I put them on the same level, something that is not achieved with most sequels. Like Curse there is very little wrong with Revenge, it's not as chillingly scary as Curse and once again(though nowhere near as fake as that of Evil and Horror) the make-up for the monster is not convincing, too normal-looking.
Like all of the Hammer Frankenstein and most of Hammer's filmography, Revenge looks absolutely great with typically outstanding Gothic set design, some of the richest uses of colour for any Hammer film, strikingly shadowy lighting and photography that is both handsome and atmosphere. Revenge also boasts a haunting score that compliments the atmosphere adeptly and is terrifically directed by Terence Fisher(who directed Curse as well), the only director of all four films to be fully up to the job; Freddie Francis for Evil and Jimmy Sangster for Horror have strengths elsewhere(Francis as cinematographer and Sangster as script-writer) but being out of their comfort zone. The script is on the same level in quality than that of Curse, there are no contradictory elements, it's not too talky and the humour is better used and of better quality. The script here is intriguing, witty and one of the most nuanced of any Hammer film and the humour is thankfully the very opposite of juvenile, instead it is of the darkly macabre and ironic kind and some of Frankenstein's lines were a real treat.
Revenge also has a completely engrossing story, it feels swiftly paced, has a lot of suspense and excitement, is filled with surprises and unexpected twists without being convoluted and gets to the point quicker than the sequels after it. While the film is never scary, it manages to be creepy. Like Curse(and Evil and Horror) it does focus more on Frankenstein than the monster, but that came off wonders because Frankenstein is a well-written and interesting character and the monster has more screen-time than the other three and is written in a more sympathetic way than the others as well. Not only is it compelling and atmosphere, but it also has heart and an emotional core, which Curse had but Evil and Horror didn't. The ending is brilliant and certainly not the anti-climax that was in Horror. And there is some excellent acting, with a once-again remarkable Peter Cushing in the definitive interpretation of Frankenstein. Francis Matthews is loyally impressionable and Michael Gwynn is astonishingly good as a poignant but subtly menacing monster, not as imposing of that of Christopher Lee in Curse but he brings more nuances and brings much more feeling and personality than Kiwi Kingston and David Prowse did for Evil and Horror.
Overall, a wonderful and almost superior sequel to one of Hammer Horror's best films, also ranking in the better half of their filmography. 9/10 Bethany Cox