Nigel P For a project with a running time in excess of three hours, 'Frankenstein: The True Story' seems in a hurry to get on with it, at least initially. Five minutes in, and we've already witnessed the death of Frankenstein's brother William and his subsequent frustration with the fatality; his fianceé Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) is exasperated by his plans to thwart death by recreating life – it seems as if the telling of the story has almost started without us! Once we've been hurriedly ushered in, the pace slows considerably and most of the first 'chapter' proves to be extremely talkie. Many ominous musings about creating 'the second Adam', some realistic dismembered limbs and the steady unveiling of the incredible cast notwithstanding; it is a necessary build-up to Frankenstein's obsession getting more delirious, and with his friend Clerval's passing, it is finally time to put the impressive laboratory set to good use.David McCallum as Clerval – in this adaption, a medical man (and brain donor) even more driven than Frankenstein himself - is afflicted by a physical malady that fuels his intent. A plethora of famous faces also includes Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Tom Baker (only months before his acclaimed role in Doctor Who), Peter Sallis, Yootha Joyce, and – excellent as Prima – Jane Seymour. Considering that Leonard Whiting as Frankenstein is the least prolific in that gang, he is never upstaged by his co-stars; one wonders why he didn't enjoy a lengthier career.Michael Serrazin's very human looking creature is something of a disappointment initially, purely because he is so un-terrifying. No misshapen monster, his slender, bandaged form is indeed what Clerval seemed to be striving for. And yet, like Michael Gwynn's human monster in Hammer's 'Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)', this is a prelude to genuine tragedy – that the handsome, playful, contented child-man soon witnesses his looks deteriorate cruelly. It is telling that when 'pretty', his childish ways amuse his creator – as ugliness begins to take hold, Victor loses patience with him. Serrazin puts in a consistently superb performance throughout, ranging from charming, to vulnerable, miserable, vengeful and downright demonic.The second and final chapter begins after the Creature's unsuccessful suicide attempt and it is during this episode the already tenuous titular claim of a 'true' story becomes even more fractured – but that can be forgiven when the results are so entertaining.Prima proves to overshadow the original creation in every way possible – embraced by high society, loved by all she meets, in fact infuriatingly perfect – especially at manipulation and bitchiness. In possibly this story's most famous scene, she pays the price. The only bit of the original Agatha, with whom the creature had formed an attachment, is her head; in a splendid scene, in front of all, the dishevelled, betrayed, deteriorating creature, violently removes it.After this, the pace enters the uneven phase it did at the beginning. In no time at all, a ship bound for America is an epic battle ground. The creature, now full of understandable hate, has a demented, fiendish persona – laughing as he hoists the terrified Polidori to his death (his – or Clerval's – mocking chants of 'Poli Dolly' thrown against the stormy skies), reduced to skeletal scraps by the lightning he deplores.Despite some unconvincing day-for-night shots, and a lacklustre dummy used for a clifftop stunt, this remains a visually impressive spectacle. 'The True Story' is an intelligent, brilliantly played take on the original novel. It also contains nods (deliberately or otherwise) to other filmic versions and yet presents its own very memorable version of the classic tale.

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.

tonstant viewer "Frankenstein: The True Story" is what happens when a literary adaptation is allowed to run riot over dramatic elements. Christopher Isherwood is a highly respected writer, but someone should have stopped him from this flaccid reverie only partially based on Mary Shelley's story.During the course of the 3-hour version of this TV movie, you can catch the author making heavy-handed references to "Pygmalion," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," "The Hands of Orlac," "Tales of Hoffmann," and "Fu Manchu" among others. It almost turns into a parlor game to catch the petty thefts from other sources.Perhaps the whole thing might have gone better with another director. I've never seen a Jack Smight movie without feeling that he's somehow fumbled it, slack rhythms and the camera often in the wrong place. This too feels like a misfire. Pyrotechnics and lava lamp effects notwithstanding, the great set pieces are uniformly feeble. It's like he doesn't shoot the story, but shoots around it.Smight certainly gets bad performances out of well-remembered actors. James Mason is helplessly inadequate trying to convey the emotion of terror. Agnes Moorehead is over the top, Michael Wilding produces his dazed smile and little more, Margaret Leighton is actively embarrassing, Sir John Gielgud perfunctory and Sir Ralph Richardson's blind hermit is perhaps the worst performance of his film career.I suppose it's not possible to stage the love triangle of Victor Frankenstein, the girl he wants to marry and the male monster he creates without raising an eyebrow from time to time, but this retelling of the tale strongly evokes the sexual ambiguities of Isherwood's "Cabaret." The monster is played not by a hulk but by a hunk, a soulful young stud who loves Mozart opera. The first meeting of Frankenstein and his monster plays like a pickup. The character of Dr. Polidori is openly contemptuous of "mere" women, and it is he, not the monster, who disrupts Victor's wedding night. Generally women come off very badly, the older ones caricatures of old bags, and the younger ones annoying, even nightmarish, in their sexual demands.Despite the starriness of the supporting cast, this film is merely a curiosity. The famous Karloff/Whale version remains the first among equals, and the Oscarsson/Floyd "Terror of Frankenstein" conveys the book the best among the color versions.Unfortunately, Mel Brooks actually gets closer to Mary Shelley's vision than this film does. Only for completists.

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.