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
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