⚡️ The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) ⚡️

“Hammer Time… with Extra Blood and Morality Gone Wrong”


—

🎬 Let’s start with the trailers, shall we?

—

📝 Non-Spoiler Thoughts

Kayla and I sat down with this film recently, and it was an experience. What Hammer set out to do was simple: revive Gothic horror by going darker and bloodier than the campy Universal sequels. The Curse of Frankenstein is meaner, moodier, and a whole lot more twisted than its predecessors.

But let’s be clear — this is not Mary Shelley’s story. Where Shelley gave us moral complexity and the creature’s tragic humanity, Hammer flips it around and says: “No, the real monster is Victor.” And honestly? That choice works.

Peter Cushing’s Baron Frankenstein isn’t a dreamer. He’s a manipulator, liar, and murderer who treats everyone as expendable. Christopher Lee’s creature, while iconic in its own way, is more like Victor’s blunt instrument — a scarred, almost feral extension of his ambition.

I’ll say this though: while Curse is powerful and iconic, The Evil of Frankenstein is still my personal favorite Hammer entry. It’s pulpier, looser, and more fun to revisit. Curse is darker and sets the stage, but Evil is the one I keep going back to.


—

🎭 Character Rundown

Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing)
Chilling. Cold. A man so wrapped in his own ambition that human life is just spare parts. Cushing makes him magnetic and terrifying.

The Creature (Christopher Lee)
Silent, scarred, and frightening. Lee’s makeup is gruesome, and his performance makes the monster feel dangerous, but there’s no real depth or tragedy here — he’s just the byproduct of Victor’s cruelty.

Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart)
Victor’s tutor and eventual rival, serving as the moral voice of the story. He’s basically the “Jiminy Cricket” who watches Victor spiral into madness.

Elizabeth (Hazel Court)
Victor’s fiancée, stuck in the crossfire between love and horror as she realizes what kind of man she’s marrying.



—

👍 Pros

The Gothic sets and costumes are dripping with atmosphere. Peter Cushing reinvents Victor Frankenstein into a straight-up villain instead of a conflicted genius. Christopher Lee’s monstrous design is grotesque and visually unforgettable. Hammer’s decision to film in full color gives the gore a visceral punch unseen in horror at that time.


—

👎 Cons

It’s not faithful to Shelley at all — so if you’re looking for a thoughtful creature grappling with existence, you won’t find it here. The monster is underdeveloped, basically serving as Victor’s attack dog. And compared to later Hammer films, this one is slower and less fun on rewatch.


—

🏁 Final Thoughts & Rating

The Curse of Frankenstein is a landmark film that set Hammer on the map and redefined Gothic horror for the modern age. It’s darker, bloodier, and nastier than Universal ever dared to be. But while I respect it, I wouldn’t call it my favorite of the Hammer series. That crown goes to The Evil of Frankenstein, which balances Hammer grit with campy fun.

Rating: 7.5/10


—

⚔️ Comparison: Curse vs. Evil

Here’s the thing: The Curse of Frankenstein is the important one — it’s the trailblazer. Without it, Hammer’s Gothic cycle wouldn’t even exist. But The Evil of Frankenstein is the one I actually enjoy more. Curse is all about punishment, doom, and Victor’s cruelty dragging him down. Evil, on the other hand, feels pulpier, looser, and more entertaining, leaning into that “monster on the rampage” vibe in a way that feels fun rather than grim.

If Curse is the respected classic, Evil is the one I’d throw on a Friday night without hesitation.


—

⚠️ Spoiler Talk Ahead! ⚠️

🧟 Creature Design: Hammer’s Monster Unleashed

One of the biggest differences between Hammer’s The Curse of Frankenstein and Universal’s iconic take is the design of the creature itself. Because Universal owned the rights to Jack Pierce’s flat-headed, bolt-necked Karloff look, Hammer had to come up with something entirely new. What we got was Christopher Lee under heavy, gruesome makeup — a creature stitched together like a patchwork quilt of corpses. His face is scarred and rotting, with sunken eyes and a horrifyingly mismatched set of features. It’s not elegant, not tragic in the romantic sense of Karloff’s monster, but instead raw, grotesque, and unsettling.

This design tells you everything about Hammer’s approach: bloodier, nastier, more visceral. You don’t sympathize with Lee’s creature the way you do with Karloff’s. Instead, you recoil. He’s less a misunderstood being and more a walking nightmare — a mirror of Victor Frankenstein’s cruelty rather than a victim of circumstance.

The decision to lean into this horrific design was a masterstroke. It set Hammer apart and gave the film its own identity, proving they weren’t trying to copy Universal but to push horror into more shocking, adult territory.

The movie opens with Victor in prison awaiting execution. He begins recounting his story, and the film unfolds in flashback.

We see a young Victor studying under Paul, and at first, it looks like pure science curiosity. But quickly, ambition turns to obsession. Victor begins robbing graves, assembling corpses, and showing a complete disregard for morality.

The breakthrough comes when Victor creates his monster — Christopher Lee’s scarred and silent creature. It’s no misunderstood poetic soul; it’s an instrument of violence, a reflection of Victor’s arrogance. The film’s gore shocked audiences at the time — blood, stitches, gruesome close-ups.

The creature goes on a killing spree, but the true horror is Victor himself: how casual he is about sacrificing lives to cover his tracks. Paul, realizing the madness, turns against him, while Elizabeth becomes increasingly horrified by the man she thought she loved.

The climax ends with Victor trying to destroy his own creation, but it backfires. The monster is “disposed of,” but Victor is left in prison. And when he tells his story, no one believes him. He’s damned — not remembered as a genius, but as a murderer awaiting execution.

It’s bleak. It’s brutal. And it sets the tone for Hammer’s entire Frankenstein cycle.