MartinHafer Wow...what was it about the mid-1970s that caused such a proliferation of Frankenstein films? Now I know that MANY such films about the monster have been made over the years--partly due to there being no need to pay royalties to make the story! But, in just a short period, at least three major Frankenstein films were made--Dan Curtis' "Frankenstein", "Frankenstein: The True Story" and this version, "Victor Frankenstein". This doesn't include minor Frankenstein films from the same period such as "Frankenstein All'Italiana" as well as comedies, such as "Young Frankenstein"! Wow. That's a lot 'o Frankenstein! "Victor Frankenstein" is a Swedish/Irish co-production, though it appears to have been made in English. I assume a few of the extras and minor characters were non-English speakers, but the main stars of the film sounded quite British.Unlike most Frankenstein stories, this one starts at the end! This sort of non-linear storytelling abounds in the movie--sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The Doctor is found on the ice by a ship--so I guess that he managed to survive the final confrontation with his creation that ends Mary Shelley's novel. On board, the crazy Doc tells the crew about his life and how he was able to create a living creature out of the dead. Considering most Frankenstein films never even mention the Arctic locale at the end of the novel, this film is decidedly closer to the book than the Universal films--though, I still must admit that despite this, the old Universal films are great fun.Much of Dr. Frankenstein's story shows the steps well before he begins creating a monster--making it a bit different than the average film. You see a few scenes in which he's working on animal dissections and a few animals are being tormented by him. While most of these scenes are not that explicit, they are still a bit hard for a sensitive person to take (such as seeing a cow about to be bludgeoned)--and I doubt if you'll be hearing representatives from PETA endorsing this version any time in the near future--though I am pretty sure they'd be okay with most Frankenstein films that show him experimenting on people as well as the human fetuses in jars (yuck!).As far as the actual process through which the monster is created, it's pretty obvious that this is a very low-budget production. While the film doesn't exactly look cheap, many of the usual special effects and electronic gizmos are notably absent--making this portion of the movie seem quite minimalistic. The production is apparently so poor that Dr. Frankenstein couldn't afford an assistant like Fritz or Igor to help him release his kites or steal body parts. And, unlike most Frankenstein films, this one looks more the creature was created in a barn or old house--not the typical old castle or mansion. None of this is bad, however, just different, as Shelley's story never actually talked about the creation process other than to say he used body parts. Suffice to say, this Frankenstein didn't seem like a rich Baron--more like a struggling student with a mountain of student loans to eventually repay! After the monster is created, the story bounces around--again, in a very non-linear fashion that I found annoying. I liked the way the film started, but later this style really was disconcerting. Again and again, I thought the film forgot important parts of the book--only to see the story backtrack and show this missing portion. For example, after the monster is created, the Doctor disappears--going to a friend's house for an extended stay. The next thing that happens is that the monster kills Doctor Frankenstein's brother--what happened to all the things in between?! Then, after the monster and Doctor meet, the monster tells what happened in the intervening interval--sort of filling in the gaps. Unfortunately, the fill-in material seemed sketchy and incomplete---and rushed.Overall, this story manages to do something I always thought was impossible. It DID follow the book rather closely (much more than other versions) but it also managed to be dull and listless--and suck a bit as well. The indifferent energy level, lack of incidental music, bizarre non-sequential story and rather dull monster (who looked too ordinary--not very monstrous at all) all worked together to undo the story. It just felt as if the film makers were trying to get the project done QUICKLY. The loving style and script of the Dan Curtis version just wasn't present. And, the fun and creepiness of the Universal version wasn't there as well. It's all a bit of a disappointment.A couple other observations about the film. It is probably the brownest Frankenstein film ever. Part of it is undoubtedly due to the sets, locales and the director's vision. In addition, the DVD print shows some degradation in the form of yellowing--making things appear even more brownish. In addition, the DVD sucks because it offers no closed captions nor DVD captions--a serious negative for my deaf daughter who wanted to see the film with me. Plus, I just like to use captions now that I am old and decrepit and 45!By the way, this Frankenstein monster is the least monstrous in film history! Just some black lipstick on a hippie is all he appears to be!

MARIO GAUCI I had always been intrigued by this Swedish-Irish production(!) - a follow-up to the same film-makers' lackluster IN SEARCH OF Dracula (1975) - for being the screen's most faithful rendering (even more so than the disappointing "official" 1994 adaptation by Francis Ford Coppola and Kenneth Branagh) of the oft-filmed Mary Shelley horror tale; while it is decidedly uninspired and choppy in treatment, its essentially literate and stately approach makes the most of the novel's classical plot and, as a result, it remains full of interest throughout. At first, I felt that Leon Vitali – who, after appearing in BARRY LYNDON (1975), became Stanley Kubrick's long-time assistant! – was too youthful in appearance to be convincing in the title role but one must remember that, after all, he was supposed to be a medical student. On the other hand, distinguished Swedish actor Per Oscarsson (whose face is effectively made up in a deathly pallor complete with darkened lips) brings out all of the creature's various qualities: an imposing build, his confusion and solitude and, eventually, a lust for vengeance towards his resentful maker. Though obviously a low-budget effort, the film still manages to approximate the narrative's epic sweep without, however, resorting to overstatement – a fault which lies at the heart of the later 'definitive' Hollywood version's artistic (and commercial) failure. For the record, even though I am familiar with many another film version of the famous story, there are still a few more which I need to see, namely the 1973 Dan Curtis TV-adaptation, the darkly-comic modern French take of Alain Jessua's FRANKENSTEIN '90 (1984) and the futuristic Roger Corman version, FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (1990).

Radish4ever Its a shame this movie never made the video nasty (or DP39) as it would have achieved instant cult status and more people would have seen it, it would have also had a special ed but hey, I am grateful to have seen it after wanting to do so for many years. Great acting, very faithful to the original script, it totally made sense in a way the others never (although I like most of them) this is the best version there is. The acting, casting and atmosphere are as good as it gets, the monster is creepy, tall and menacing and soulless, he hates his creator and you feel sorry for Victor, he made a mistake meddling with the creation of life and is hounded by the monster. Very chilling, everyone should see this movie, its that good. One of my favourite films ever and as a bit of an anorak, I have seen many 1000's.

IMOvies TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1975) * (D: Calvin Floyd) - aka VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN; a faithful adaption of the original novel which defies you to stay awake. The monster is decidedly quite non-monstrous. Excruciatingly boring.