Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Parks "Frankenstein - The True Story" starts with the redoubtable James Mason introducing himself and explaining that what we are about to see is all from the imagination of 19 year old Mary Shelley. It really isn't, you know. This film is a hybrid of the novel, the 1930's movies and the 1950's Hammer version, all mixed up by Christopher Isherwood of "Cabaret" and "A Single Man". The result is a sumptuous Gothic tragedy with a literate script.In this version, Dr. Frankenstein brings a corpse back to life using power from the sun. This is no lumbering monstrosity but a good- looking young chap, eager to learn and with a love of opera. So Victor and his creation get along very well - Victor teaches the creature refined etiquette and takes him out and about. But then Victor realises his monster is degenerating as time passes, and turning back into a walking corpse. As the creature's once-fine features crumble, Victor turns his back on the monster who responds first with confusion and grief, then fury. What I really liked about this version is that it makes the motives of all the key players fall into place. You really sympathise with this creature, rejected by an indifferent creator as a failed experiment. And while the film is not particularly gory or scary, there are some genuinely unsettling moments - like the insinuation that the monster's soul is an amalgam of all the dead that went into making him.There's a terrific cast including James Mason as the malevolent Dr. Polidori (and no-one seems quite so delighted with themselves when being evil as good old JM). Michael Sarrazin as the creature, David McCallum as Victor's mentor and Jane Seymour Medicine Woman as Yokel With Cleavage. Lots of other familiar faces turn up too including John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Tom Baker, Agnes "Endora" Morehead and even Yootha "Mildred" Joyce. I've never been a Frankenfan before, but I really enjoyed this one.

Lawson Omg zzz. I bought this DVD partly because of its high rating on IMDb and partly because I'm an Agnes Moorehead fan but wow, it was mostly boring and Moorehead only had a tiny part. I have to qualify that it was probably more boring to me than others because of my impatience with fine literature, even if it's a movie adaptation of it. By all accounts, this movie is a faithful reproduction of Mary Shelley's novel, but like with faithful adaptations of Shakespeare's plays for example, it just made me want to sleep. Otherwise, it was a pretty good production. The sets looked great, and the movie had a pretty famous cast. I was most taken with Jane Seymour's Prima - gorgeous but with an edge, like something evil lurks beneath the surface - quite a perfect Bride of Frankenstein.

nlights I was so pleased and surprised when I saw the DVD of this film for rent recently. I originally saw it on TV back in '73 (I was about 8) and it has stayed with (haunted?) me every since. A number of people have posted about how it made such an impression on them at the time, and I am certainly in that camp. Judging by other comments, it would seem that the only audience that actually watched the whole thing was between the ages of 5 and 10 :}.Anyway, watching it again last night with much more seasoned eyes, I was able to appreciate so many more aspects of this very well done film. While not a direct interpretation of the novel, it is certainly among the top three film versions of the story. It's not what you would call action packed but surprisingly, clocking in at around 3 hours, doesn't drag either, due to a tight script.It would have benifited from more music throughout as it carries a very sparse score. Guess it wasn't in the budget. In this release there was a very crucial scene which didn't match my memory, and I've come to find out that it had been edited. It was a somewhat gory scene but for crying out loud, it was on TV in '73! And we couldn't put it on the DVD now?? I don't get it. Other than those couple of points, it really is a somewhat forgotten classic.

crooow-2 I first saw this as a two-part miniseries on TV in the early seventies. Several scenes left a strong impression on me (see below). When the DVD version recently became available, I bought it on the first available day. Of course, it did not live up to my childhood memories but I was not disappointed. However, my wife found it boring (too slow) and a friend thought it was stupid (with bad production moments and some silly dialogue). I agree that it is slow and that there are many portions that could have been edited down. But I still find it very worthwhile particularly for the storyline interpretations and the character issues raised.Being familiar with the novel, I realize that this version is not "true" to the original story's plot. But I believe it is much truer to the spirit of the novel than most other productions. The creature is sympathetic while still doing horrific things. Frankenstein's behavior is difficult to understand: obsessive yet easily frustrated. The bad: the added prolog, the first 5 minutes (rushed - would have been better as backstory in voice-over), bad production value (the carriage scene), silly plot devices (the hypnosis, Clerval's sudden attacks, the housekeeper's death by fright, the Polidori plan for Prima, Victor's explanation for who the creature is), the stock footage of the Arctic (not even the same film resolution).The good: the acting, the creature's makeup, the ending, the script in general ("Bravo, Victor").My favorite scenes: the severed arm banging on the cabinet during the creation, the creature's heartbreaking realization that he is no longer beautiful, Victor and the creature on the white cliffs, the creature and the blind hermit, Prima playing the piano and playing with the white cat, the horrific ballroom scene, the final Polidori scene (despite the weak special effects), the frozen deck, and the final conciliation between Frankenstein and the creature).The interesting: why is Prima evil while the Creature starts out good? Is it Polidori's training? Can either of them be considered good or evil or are they amoral? Why does Victor treat the creature poorly? Frustration over his own failure? Why is the creature never given a name?In summary, not great but a welcome mental break from the high-action low-thought films of today.