The Hammer Frankenstein series (1957 - 1974)

Back in the mid-'50s, Hammer Film Productions (a company founded in 1934) transitioned from largely producing mystery films and noirs to focusing more heavily on reimagining the gothic horror stories brought to life by Universal Studios starting several decades earlier. While it took a few films for Hammer to make this step, starting it's official horror catalog with black and white sci/fi movies like 'X The Unknown' and 'The Quatermass Xperiment' (and no, that's not a typo) that were at worst passably entertaining, in 1957 everything changed with the release of 'The Curse of Frankenstein', their first color horror movie and a massively influential gothic milestone.

In spite of not being their first foray into the horror genre, Hammer's first entry in their Frankenstein series was perhaps the most important film they ever produced. This movie, which was a distinct departure from the source material had an instant impact on their company, ushering in sequels and several other horror films that would become series' of their own. The use of gothic sets, brightly colored blood, and theatrical performances became staples of the company, and as Hammer's first color horror film, this one pretty much set the standard. Following the exploits of Dr. Frankenstein, this series immediately separated itself from the Universal films, which focused more on the Monster instead. It was a different approach that paid off in the end, as this allowed them to create new monsters with each movie and still have the series tie in together through a single lead performance.

So let's talk a little bit about this series piece by piece, of course starting with the first film. But before that, here is the rundown of what I'll be talking about, in case you want to scroll through for specific things:

Reviews
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)
The Evil of Frankenstein (1964)
Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)
The Horror of Frankenstein (1970)
Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974)

The Monster
Who played the Monster in each movie?

Continuity
Do they need to be seen in any particular order?

DVD/Blu-ray Release
Where can you find them?

Best to Worst
My personal ordering for the series - complete with ratings.

There aren't any other pieces of information I feel need to be addressed beyond this, so sit back, relax, have a drink or two, and don't forget to bookmark this post, because we're gonna be here for a while.

1957
The Curse of Frankenstein
Directed by Terence Fisher

It's always a good sign when your horror movie is directed by Terence Fisher and prominently features both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and this is the movie that established that precedent. This is a total departure from the source material, picking influence from both the novel and the Universal classic while also blending in plenty of new elements. Starting with Frankenstein as a child, we're given more backstory here than previous attempts at the story and this serves the character well, as we can witness firsthand his gradual spiral into obsession and insanity.

There are many key differences between this and the 1931 adaptation, including the creature design for the Monster, and mainly the nature of Dr. Frankenstein's character. In the '31 version, he's simply a scientist who dug too deep and went too far to discover; in this film, he's a total madman who lacks any compassion or regard for human life -- while ironically seeking methods to maintain life and reanimate the dead. This, I feel, adds a lot to the character, who is played remarkably by Cushing. As far as horror performances go, this is among my favorites of all-time.

Lee as the Monster is also exceptional, with much of the credit going to make up artist Phil Leakey (who worked on films like Horror of Dracula and Abominable Snowman for Hammer as well) for managing to create an entirely new design for an undisputed icon of cinema and pop culture. Although not as iconic, this design is grotesque and matches the dark tone of the film much better than a more similar design to the original might have. This is the best creature design in the Hammer Frankenstein series, bar none.

This isn't an effects-heavy film like the James Whale version, and due to the slower pacing and visual and tonal differences, this film truly stands on its own as a unique reimagining of the novel, and has been rightfully placed in the pantheon of important and historically significant horror films from the 1950s. As Hammer's first gothic horror film, it should come as no surprise that this movie left a huge impact, and while the sequels were much more flawed than this in several ways, it doesn't take away from this film. It manages to stand on its own as a horror gem that shouldn't be ignored by fans of the genre.

1958
The Revenge of Frankenstein
Directed by Terence Fisher

Also directed by Fisher and starring Cushing, this film's absence of Lee is noticeable but never made to feel lacking because of it. Although the atmosphere is similar to The Curse of Frankenstein, you can definitely start to see the B-movie direction the series would start to take from this point on. And it all comes back to the beginning of the movie itself.

At the end of 'Curse', Frankenstein is sentenced to death with the credits rolling as he's escorted to the guillotine. At the start of this film, it's revealed that he somehow managed to switch places with a priest who was beheaded instead, allowing Frankenstein to escape and start his experiments somewhere new. Apart from the obvious continuity problems here, this is actually a great way to separate Frankenstein from the source material even further, distancing him entirely from Bride of Frankenstein territory. While the first film is unique in many ways, this first sequel is what really started to set the series apart.

With his new life and name, Frankenstein uses his skill and faux-charity to secretly harvest body parts from the sick and poor, all the while establishing himself as one of the most esteemed doctors in his village. With the promise of helping his physically handicapped assistant by transferring his brain into a more capable body, Frankenstein is able to focus more on bringing life to dead flesh and help to rehabilitate than previously, which had been far more emphatically centered around the reanimation process.

This one, unlike its predecessor, ends on a note that would allow for a more direct sequel. Sadly, when they did decide to follow this up with a third entry in the series under the new direction of Freddie Francis, the story went more into reboot territory. This is a pulpy, low-brow Frankenstein film that once again features the great makeup provided by Phil Leakey, who would not return again for the third installment -- and it shows.

1964
The Evil of Frankenstein
Directed by Freddie Francis

Everyone has said it but that doesn't make it any less true: The Evil of Frankenstein was the worst in the Frankenstein series. Choosing to essentially reboot the story instead of following up the events of 'Revenge' was a poor series move, the writing for Frankenstein's character was incredibly lazy (this was the first of their Frankenstein films not written by Jimmy Sangster), and - more than anything else - the terrible Monster makeup is a huge distraction. Had this been the film presented back in '57, the series would have stopped before they even had chance to consider a follow-up.

I can't blame Peter Cushing for the failures in his development as a character, he did everything he could to infuse charm and physicality into his role, but certain scenes seemed to paint him as an overly flamboyant action star and not the twisted schemer we love to hate. One moment in particular resembles a James Bond scene, and though it did give me the momentary glee of watching Cushing act out yet another iconic role, it was tonal departures like this that kept it from being a movie you could take even remotely seriously. This is a B-movie, through and through.

Roy Ashton, who worked as makeup artist on a majority of Hammer's most impressive features, sadly dropped the ball here. Universal and Hammer worked together to make this movie, which allowed them to use a more standard Frankenstein appearance without violating copyright, but instead of recreating the classic look, this incarnation of the Monster looks more like someone with a cardboard box plastered to his forehead than the flat-topped creature we are all familiar with. I love Ashton's work, especially in The Mummy, but his first attempt in the Frankenstein series was a massive failure.

The story here is nothing special, making me wonder why they felt the need to make this one at all, especially considering the interesting turns they could have very well taken the character after the resolution of the previous film, which might have potentially explored the reanimation process of Frankenstein himself. The only notable difference in what happens here from previous entries is in its use of mind control and brainwashing, which is so forced it never really feels like they meant for it to play into the movie at all: just added to pad out the runtime. It could have been cool, but instead we were given a fairly bland repackaging of the traditional story without the shock, quality, or ingenuity of the original but with a little hypnosis tacked on. What was next for the series and how could it save itself? By bringing back Terence Fisher, of course. Pretty simple solution.

1967
Frankenstein Created Woman
Directed by Terence Fisher

About 3 times better than the previous one, this film attempts to delve deeper into the psyche of Frankenstein's experimentations, starting off with his own temporary death and reanimation. Instead of just trying to bring life to corpses, this film explores the possibilities of a more spiritual existence and the presence of a soul. Attempting to preserve the soul and discover means to transfer them from body to body, Frankenstein truly has entered difficult territory that even someone of his genius cannot quite grasp.

Frankenstein's return to form, this time placing more emphasis on side characters than ever before, this 4th entry in the series probably stands as the second-best up to this point, only inferior to the original. Cushing, despite being relatively sidelined here, gives a subdued and cunning performance here, returning the role more to the nature of the first two. Despite being more toned down than possibly any other entry in the series, he is every bit as immoral and psychotic, just more in a subtly manipulative and less exaggerated way. This film doesn't feature a traditional monster, which may disappoint many fans of the franchise, but I found this a very welcome change of pace. The primary villains here are neither the Monster nor Frankenstein himself -- at least, not entirely. The line is blurred.

Apart from the obvious improvement in the exploration of Frankenstein himself, the supporting cast in this film is possibly more sympathetic and fleshed-out even than 'Curse', building characters and villains that play alongside Frankenstein's experimentations that actually effect the story. This character-building is not padding at all, actually managing to make sympathetic people you don't want to see experience the calamitous fates known to befall upon those who find themselves intwined in Frankenstein's business. In spite of his relatively limited screentime, his influence on the story is massive and using him as less of a focus served well to provide a backdrop to what essentially boils down to a traditional revenge film.

There is a very tragic nature to this story, one that actually hit me pretty hard. The idea of putting someone else's soul into the body of a person they loved is that particular brand of twisted that truly defines Cushing's Frankenstein. He may be a genius with grand aspirations, but his total disregard for the very nature of humanity can make for some very thought-provoking drama. This is a clever entry in the series that stands out especially when compared to its predecessor. In fact, by skipping 'Evil' entirely, you could perceive this as a direct sequel to 'Revenge' (in spite of obvious continuity problems) due to it beginning with his death and resurrection.

1969
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed
Directed by Terence Fisher

This is Frankenstein at his most decidedly evil. In the past, he would manipulate and disregard people, largely ignoring any physical desires of his own. People are just pawns to him; useful but insignificant tools. In this film, his manipulation and destruction of people goes a few distinct steps beyond that, culminating in rape, murder, and extreme psychological torment. We often lose sight of the fact he is, in fact, human, as he rarely shows any interest in carnal human desires. If anything, this film acts as a not-so-subtle reminder that Frankenstein is truly despicable in every way.

The set-up is pretty standard, with Frankenstein blackmailing a doctor and his girlfriend into helping him bring life/sanity back to his old assistant, whose damaged brain may very well possess secrets Frankenstein hopes to learn. Transferring the mind of one person into the body of another, this movie really doesn't break any new ground for the series, but it handles the material so well it doesn't bother me at all that it feels a bit redundant. Watching Frankenstein cruelly manipulate and subsequently torture people makes for some sickly amusing entertainment. Just when you think he might not be entirely evil, he does something else to remind you of just the kind of twisted monster he really is.

The makeup and gore effects in this movie are the best since the original, though the emphasis on gore is most definitely the highlight of the two, due to the relatively subdued makeup effects on the Monster himself. In spite of it being over-the-top violent at times, there is a calm sincerity to the film and the way the creature attempts to begin his life anew. As could be expected from any Terence Fisher film, the set design and attention to visual detail here is terrific and as a character, this is probably the most defined and fully realized the Monster has ever been.

As is often the case in this series, the Monster itself is a very sympathetic character who tragically underlines the very hypocrisy of who we choose to define as a "monster". As mentioned before, Frankenstein is an evil man whose focus and intent never approaches the realm of sympathy or sanity, and the Monster is merely a lost soul who (like everyone else who becomes embroiled in the horrors of Frankenstein) wishes he could escape from his tragic fate and return to a now-impossible normal life. Though it's never quite as devastatingly tragic as the previous film, this is a suitably dark and morbidly heartbreaking story that does well to help the series evolve. Also worth noting is the terrific, thrilling third act which marks the end of what you could call the high point of the series. But there are a few more movies left to talk about.

1970
The Horror of Frankenstein
Directed by Jimmy Sangster

Of the previous 5 films, Peter Cushing starred in every one and Terence Fisher directed all but 'Evil', which was by far my least favorite of the group. Here, only one year after the release of 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed', which culminated in the titular destruction of Frankenstein, they released this semi-parody/remake of the 'Curse' starring Ralph Bates as Frankenstein instead of Cushing, with Fisher nowhere near the director's chair. Seeing as how much I love Cushing's performance in these movies and their incredibly dark tone, this was never destined to be a favorite of mine. And depending on who you ask, this isn't even part of the series, since Cushing had always been the glue holding these movies together. So think of it as the Hammer Frankenstein equivalent to the 1967 Casino Royale, which was technically a Bond movie, but also not really.

Directed by Sangster (who wrote the screenplay for the first two Frankensteins, as well as Horror & Brides of Dracula and their first Mummy), this was his first of only three directorial efforts, all of which were horror films made for Hammer within a period of 2-3 years. Though the pacing here is a tad slow, seeing as how it is an attempt to start the story from the beginning, Sangster really proves how well he understands Frankenstein -- both as as character and a story. And seeing as how Sangster co-wrote this as well as direct and produce, it becomes fairly obvious that this is material he's comfortable with. Although the visuals are never quite as striking as in the Fisher movies, the sense of levity and somewhat sarcastic tone is a welcome change after the devastating and emotionally disturbing previous film; I love 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed', but sometimes it's a little harsh to completely enjoy.

But strong writing and a good sense of humor isn't enough to change the fact that Ralph Bates is no Peter Cushing. He handles the role well, adding youthful arrogance and charm to the role usually dominated by Cushing's intimidating and suave maturity, but he's never as hypnotically intense. He's a solid mad doctor, but never quite convincingly mad enough to win me over. It's a tough act to follow, but he does his best. If I were to choose a different Hammer regular to slip into the role, my personal choice would have been Oliver Reed, whose controlled intensity could have been riveting. Prowse is a solid classic Monster, whose makeup is similar enough to the Jack Pierce design to feel legitimately "Frankenstein-like" but unique enough to be its own creation. Sadly, he barely factors into the story, not coming to life until over an hour into the movie.

While this is still very much in the vein if Hammer's usual horror attempts, the early '70s marked a point in time where they began focusing more heavily on sex along with violence, which works better for Bates than it does for Cushing. The story is a fairly standard retelling of a tale we could practically sing-a-long to, but there are very distinct surface and tonal differences between this, 'The Curse of Frankenstein', and the '31 version to warrant its existence: unlike 'The Evil of Frankenstein'. While I could never recommend this over the Universal original or Hammer's first attempt, it works as a cohesive and self-contained adaptation that I wouldn't steer people clear of -- unless they're a tad squeamish. It was an interesting experiment for the series, but an unnecessary one.

1974
Frankenstein
and the Monster from Hell
Directed by Terence Fisher

The triumphant return of Peter Cushing and Terence Fisher, this movie kind of picks up where the last Cushing movie left off, though the very nature of that statement could be easily contested since his death was so heavily implied. This is the last hurrah for Frankenstein, as the company attempted to shift focus from horror shortly afterwards (before inevitably disappearing for several decades), even providing us with the last movie ever directed by Terence Fisher who died less than a decade after the film's release. Seeing as how Fisher's career working on Hammer horror began with the first of their Frankenstein adaptations, it only seems fitting he would end his career with their last one.

Scrapping everything from 'Horror' apart from David Prowse (who plays an entirely different Monster here, although still technically plays the same role), but bringing back the aforementioned director and star as well as composer James Bernard, who supplied the music for several of the earlier films. Prowse's reappearance as the Monster draws yet another vague comparison to the Bond franchise, which in 2006 scrapped the entire cast and crew with the sole exception of Judi Dench, who would return in her role as M. As British film franchises that emerged within a few years of each other, it shouldn't come as such a surprise to me that they share certain similarities -- but it still does.

Returning more to the subdued performance he gave in 'Frankenstein Created Woman', Cushing is still a force to be reckoned with, instantly dominating the movie the moment he enters the frame. This is perhaps the best introduction he has in the entire series, as the hush in the film that occurs upon his appearance is most assuredly shared with the audience. I enjoy this toned-down version of the character, and I feel it works much better for the last entry. Shane Briant is a solid assistant for the doctor, a younger man who very much shares the same ambitions as Frankenstein, and David Prowse as the ape-like Monster is...certainly memorable. As could be expected, no one else stands out like Cushing, even if his wig is distracting.

Apart from the stupid looking Monster, this is a pretty fun and solid effort and while I would softly recommend this to fans of Cushing and good old-fashioned mad scientist movies, this series really should have ended after Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. I had fun with it and the asylum setting was and nice change of pace, but this movie really just never takes off the way you would want it to and ultimately ends a very entertaining series on a bit of a low note. It would have been better as the 4th in the series, but just isn't well-suited to being the finale. Luckily, since there isn't much as far as continuity in the series, you don't *have* to end it with this if you don't want to: just start with 'Curse' and end on 'Destroyed'.

The Monster
Who played the Monster in each movie?

Far more that the Universal movies explore this aspect of the novel, Hammer much more successfully managed to question the very nature of who the "monster" really is. But that's not why you're here. So let's show some pictures, name some names, and send you along your way.

Christopher Lee
'The Curse of Frankenstein'

The Monster is a character who has always been fairly sympathetic. He's a damaged mind inside a damaged body, all due to a madman who didn't fully understand what he was dealing with. This incarnation, despite being one of the more visually-interesting and terrifying there has ever been, does not possess many of the tragic elements that the character is known for. Much more of an actual monster than the rest, devoid of compassion or humanity as a whole -- a reflection of his creator. Lee's massive build and corpse-like makeup make him very intimidating, not to mention well-performed due to Lee's remarkable ability to express so much by sheer body language alone. Almost on par with Karloff.

Michael Gwynn
'The Revenge of Frankenstein'

Transferring the brain of a living man into a new body isn't exactly mind-blowing for the series, but what happens with this particular creation is interesting. Placing the mind of a deformed man into a new body only temporarily cures him of his physical ailments, which eventually start to take over and return him to the state of his original body. This opens up possibilities regarding the mind's control over the body, but also calls into question Frankenstein's abilities as a neuro-surgeon. Rehabilitation and disintegration play a big part of this monster, and Michael Gwynn does a great job handling the physicality required of him. He isn't as traditional or horrific, but manages to become a lot more of a full character, thanks to him being previously introduced and developed from the start of the movie.

Kiwi Kingston
'The Evil of Frankenstein'

I know I made it fairly clear in my review segment, but this is definitely the first low point in the series, and a good deal of that does fall back on this creature design. Kingston does just fine, but there was relatively little required of him. He is a version of the Monster that lacks any kind of personality or character, largely working under the influence of an outside force: this is the Kharis mummy version of Frankenstein's Monster. And the makeup...yeah, I don't really need to say any more about it. This looks terrible in every way, and stands as possibily the worst looking version of the Monster. Note to future Frankenstein makeup artists: his forehead isn't the part that's supposed to be flat. You can thank me later.

Susan Denberg
'Frankenstein Created Woman'

I feel it's important to include both the before and after for this Monster, as it stands as the first version that I'm aware of where the creature itself is actually better looking after the operation. This was the first "sexy" Frankenstein, as weird as that sounds, and Hammer would follow suit a few years later by going one step beyond by making a sexy Mummy movie...but that's for a different time. This is a purely revenge-ridden Monster, who now infused with the soul of another person, has a distinct goal in mind. No physical degeneration, but plenty of mental and internal turmoil. Definitely an interesting one unlike any others in the series before or after, and Denberg handles it well, despite never really feeling like a "true" Frankenstein Monster.

Freddie Jones
'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed'

Easily the most tragic, empathetic, and human of all previous creatures, this Monster is created with the sole purpose of extracting information from his brain. Jones makes his heartbreaking scenes all the more powerful thanks to his visible distress and internal agony. The scene where he confronts his wife in this new body is the most depressing moment in probably the entire series. This is much more like the Monster from the book, who damns Frankenstein for being so selfish and careless to bring him into existence without any consideration for life beyond personal gain. Tragic to the core and, although less visually menacing than the first two in the series, more of a step toward the source material than ever before.

David Prowse
'The Horror of Frankenstein'

Visually the most reminiscent of the Jack Pierce/Universal version that Hammer ever produced, Prowse is the massive, lumbering force of destruction Frankenstein's Monster is most known for. The makeup, while definitely interesting and macabre, isn't as natural as several previous versions, but it works due to the corny intentions of the movie in general. As a written character and performance, there isn't much personality or originality to be found with this one, one look at him will tell you why he was cast in this role. The scene where he kills a man with an axe is one of his defining moments, and probably the only time you'll ever see the Monster do something like that ever again.

David Prowse
'Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell'

Apparently, in spite of being the only returning member of the entire production of 'Horror', Prowse's performance as the Monster left strong enough of an impression on Fisher for him to be recast in the Monster role for this final installment in the series. It's a shame this had to be the design, because this is arguably the dumbest looking creature of them all. Prowse tries, but just isn't able to act through this doofy body suit and mask. Luckily, they never put too much focus on this Monster, as it easily stands as the worst thing about the movie.

Continuity
Do they need to be seen in any particular order?

As much as I would love to answer "yes" or "no" to this question and have it be done with, to be entirely honest it can't be summed up quite so easily. The Frankenstein character does have a sort of transition throughout the series in spite of the stories and surrounding characters having relatively little to do with each other (over-arching themes excluded), making it a little tough to give a simple answer. But in my personal opinion, in spite of me feeling the need to recommend virtually every movie here, there is really no movie apart from first one that really *should* be seen to understand the rest just fine. Peripheral characters don't transition from movie to movie, and Frankenstein's fates from each entry barely tie in together at all. Even in an attempt to have the sequel follow up the first film, it doesn't really add up. But if I were to make a visual timeline, it would look like this:

"Complete" series in order
1. The Curse of Frankenstein
2. The Revenge of Frankenstein
3. Frankenstein Created Woman
4. Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed
5. Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell

Self-contained remakes/reboots
The Evil of Frankenstein
The Horror of Frankenstein

My own personal feelings about these movies aside, 'The Curse of Frankenstein' is the only one that I would call essential, and while I included this rough order following it, those movies could all be seen in any order and there wouldn't be any real issue. Most of the movies are self-contained, have a beginning that doesn't correlate with the ending of the previous one, and this trend continued from the second movie onward. Since 'Revenge' didn't follow up with an actual sequel, and it's beginning was never really fully explained, it can easily be skipped past without issue. So while I would recommend watching those first 4 in order (no, I'm not including 'Evil' in that) and skipping the rest if you don't care to watch them all, anything you watch after the first one will be fine. Not too much over-arching plot continuity at risk of being thrown off here, though there are seeds of progression you can find if you look hard enough.

In short, anything after the first movie is fair game. Go wild.

DVD/Blu-ray Release
Where can you find them?

It has long been a complaint of mine that there doesn't appear to be any region 1 DVD release of the complete Hammer Frankenstein series. The reason for this is the distribution rights of these movies don't all belong to the same company. I can't answer the reason behind this, apart from funding must have been difficult to find for Hammer, in spite of the success of these films. These are the companies who own distribution for each of the films, hence why it's almost impossible to find them in any kind of collections together:

Warner Bros. - The Curse of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed
Columbia Pictures - The Revenge of Frankenstein
Universal Pictures - The Evil of Frankenstein
20th Century-Fox - Frankenstein Created Woman
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer - The Horror of Frankenstein
Paramount Pictures - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell

Yes, that's 7 movies over 6 distributors. Thanks to this disorganization, there doesn't appear to be any full, non-bootleg release for these movies as a whole -- at least none in the United States. While these all can be found elsewhere, the convenience of one collection would be preferable, though that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. The TCM release of 'The Curse of Frankenstein' and 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed' comes with 'Horror of Dracula', making that the cheapest way to buy two of the movies as well as one of Hammer's other greatest films, but this is the largest compilation of these Frankenstein movies that can be found, sadly. Makes you wish they had a release like Universal did with their legacy collections, doesn't it?

Best to Worst
(with ratings)

The Curse of Frankenstein - 10/10

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed - 8/10

Frankenstein Created Woman - 8/10

The Revenge of Frankenstein - 8/10

Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell - 6/10

The Horror of Frankenstein - 6/10

The Evil of Frankenstein - 4/10

---

And this concludes my look at Hammer's Frankenstein series. How do they hold up? I would say pretty well. They may not be as "classic" or influential as the Universal movies were, but they were never meant to be. This was a series with an entirely different focus and modus operandi. It helped usher in the gothic horrors of the late '50s and early-mid '60s and gave one of my all-time favorite actors a half dozen opportunities to show his range and establish himself as a horror icon. Hammer was a major force of change in the horror genre, and this was the series that brought this change about.

In several of the largest shifts in horror movies, Frankenstein has been at the forefront. Something about the story of man taking technology too far and playing God has always rung a chord with audiences, and will continue to do so for years to come. Stories of death, rebirth, madness, science, progress, and fear. With all of this, the result is always and will always be true horror. Thank you for your time.