tl12 Having said that, being closer to Mary Shelly's book does not in it's self make the movie good or bad. I love the Karloff version but it is nothing like the book. From the many Frankenstein based movies I gave this one a 5. Bo Svenson's height was perfect for the role of the creature and he played it with sensitivity.The book is a first person account with Victor Frankenstein narrating the story to the captain of a ship who rescued Victor from freezing on the same ice that the ship is locked in.The only movie that I have seen that is really close to the book is the 2004 Hallmark version. While the creature is more good looking than described in the book, the characters are correct, the chronology is correct and the changing disposition of the creature is correct. It is available on DVD and I recommend it to all fans of the book and/or the movies.

MARIO GAUCI Among the myriad 'offsprings', I have watched a dozen direct adaptations of the Mary Shelley horror tale (1910, 1931, 1935, 1952, 1957, 1958, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1994, 2004); this new addition to the list is an average production, not too bad in itself but hardly inspired. The best thing about it is the reasonably strong presence of creator (Robert Foxworth) and creature (Bo Svenson) – the former is as engrossed in his Great Experiment as he is detached from his home life, while the latter handles the character' essentially guileless nature, developing into (and alternating between) brute strength and pathos, quite well. The rest of the cast hardly matters – John Karlen (from Harry Kumel's arty vampire flick DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS {1971}) as one of the Baron's (technically, he is not one since his father is still alive!) associates is killed off early (his inadvertent death at the monster's hands effectively replacing the celebrated one of the little girl from James Whale's seminal 1931 version!) and Susan Strasberg is wasted as Elizabeth.Interestingly, when the film begins, Frankenstein is already a pariah among his own peers – yet, nothing is subsequently made of this, with Dr. Waldman barely figuring in the narrative at all! Again, however, the creation scene being disrupted by the arrival of Frankenstein Senior, Elizabeth and his clueless old colleague (not to mention the harnessing of natural electricity, i.e. lightning, to this end) shamelessly rips off the classic Colin Clive/Boris Karloff picture! The famous educational scenes with the blind hermit from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) are there (except the visually-impaired one is a girl) but these have none of the poignant beauty of that film. However, there is no malevolent figure like Ernest Thesiger's Dr. Praetorius from Whale's even better sequel or James Mason's Polidori in the rival (and decidedly superior) production to the film under review, FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973). The death of Young Frankenstein{sic}'s kid brother and Elizabeth herself are ported over from the original source…but the finale is rather tame, bafflingly eschewing a decent final confrontation between monster and mad scientist by having Foxworth slip and impale himself on a spike(!) and Svenson conventionally expiring to bullet wounds fired by the conveniently-arriving Police!! Incidentally, despite being part of a TV series called "Wide World Mystery" and originally shown in 2 segments, the film has been released on DVD as DAN CURTIS' FRANKENSTEIN – even if he only served as Producer/Co-Writer on it. For the record, this was the third of his TV adaptations of literary horror classics: the others were THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968), THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (the only one I have not watched and do not own yet!), Dracula (both 1973) and THE TURN OF THE SCREW (1974).

JoeKarlosi Dan Curtis production originally made for television, one of the many renderings of the classic Mary Shelley tale. It's shot on videotape and was originally aired as a two-part episode of a show called "Wide World Mystery". It's quite underwhelming at first, at least until the appearance of the monster (interestingly played by Bo Svenson). From then on, Svenson's humanistic approach as a tortured and sympathetic creature makes for a decent take on the original story. His is one of the finest monsters in any Frankenstein production. Robert Foxworth doesn't fare as well as Dr. Victor Frankenstein; he's over the top and rather theatrical. **1/2 out of ****

MartinHafer While I am a firm believer that there will NEVER be a version of Frankentein that is as good as the book, this is at least a step in the right direction. While I would rate the Karloff version higher simply because of its technical merits and ability to scare you, this made for TV version is superior in many ways. Unlike earlier versions, this one really centers on the creature and its unfortunate existence. Like the book, the focus is on the "monster" after it is soon abandoned by its maker and the life the creature creates for itself shows great humanity and depth. In fact, in this way, the movie is terribly sad and heart-wrenching. Let me give a couple of examples. First, soon after the creature is created, Frankenstein's assistant plays with him. The monster, unaware of his immense strength, crushes the poor assistant to death. When Frankenstein returns to find this, the creature is saying "Otto, play" over and over again because he has no idea what he's done. Second, after running away, the creature hides out in a pantry--living among the bags of potatoes. He is so lonely for human contact that he delights in listening to the family talk and interact--knowing he cannot reveal his ugly self to them. In fact, he is so miserable, that he creates a little pretend man out of a potato and talks to it out of desperation. How pathetic! This film chooses to focus on the creature and portray him like a toddler sent out to live alone. On this level it is very successful.UPDATE--I just saw this film again (11/09) and noticed even more than before that Bo Svenson's performance made this film. The rest of the cast (with the exception of the inn keeper) were all good, but Svenson humanized the monster in a way that no other act has done. His performance elicits far more pathos and connection with the audience than even the original great novel. A wonderful performance that more than makes up for the lower budget and changes to the story necessitated by the budgetary constraints (especially towards the end of the film). Well worth watching and better than the Karloff version in many ways. Also, there is another 1973 made for TV Frankenstein film, FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY. While well made in many ways, it's not nearly as good as this film and is too histrionic and deviates too far from the Shelley novel (despite the title). It's worth seeing, but Michael Sarrazin's monster is a far cry from Svenson's.