CountVladDracula Do not let this one fool you. This NOT a faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. The very idea that the Frankenstein creature is decomposing contradicts that the creature was given life. He's alive, not just reanimated dead tissue, that's a major point in the story. It's a disappointing and senseless twist that is completely unnecessary. If you want a version of Frankenstein that actually follows Mary Shelley's novel check out the version produced by Hallmark and released to DVD by Lion's Gate starring Luke Goss as the creature. That mini-series version of Frankenstein from 2004 is the most faithful to the book.

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.

fertilecelluloid Full-blooded telling of the Frankenstein story manages to be fresh and original and sustains its running time. There are several terrific performances and possibly the most sympathetic, tragic portrayal of the monster ever by Michael Sarrazin. Dr. Henry Clerval (David McCallum) enlists the services of brilliant surgeon Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) to help him create a human being from body parts. As everybody knows, the experiment hits a hiccup and "The Creature" goes bananas. But when Dr. John Pilodori (James Mason) steps up to the plate to construct a second creature with Frankenstein's aid, the drama hits its stride and all hell breaks loose. Some of that "hell" is the understandable anger of Frankenstein's bride (Nicola Pagett), who is forced to spend her wedding night alone while hubby is busy giving life to dead things in his hillside lab. Mason is incredible as the obsessed, insane Polidori, the film's true villain, and does a good job of making us (the audience) loathe the very sight of him. Pagett is strong as the frustrated but devoted wife, and Whiting is a memorable Frankenstein. Also worthy of praise is Ralph Richardson who breathes much life into the role of the Blind Hermit. Sarrazin, however, is a revelation as the decaying, angry, emotionally distraught experiment gone wrong. Because we have seen him proud and happy, it is horrible to watch him physically disintegrate and become persona non grata in the Frankenstein lab. During the creation of Jane Seymour's "Bride", it was devastating to see the dejected Sarrazin witnessing the process, knowing his time had already come and gone. Later, the scene in which he crashes a party and beheads a key character is a classic horror moment and manages to be emotional and grotesque. Aside from the last scene, which has an inexplicable abruptness to it, this is a fantastic Frankenstein adaptation.

Gary-161 There are some subtle moments in this self styled 'true' re-telling of Mary Shelley's celebrated novel. Anyone notice how Victor's bride to be appears to give his brother the evil eye at the film's opening scene? Also when Victor tries to prevent the creature from throwing himself off the cliff but then notices that there is no one around to see if he did so, and the monster picks up on it? Perhaps the film should have ended there. Instead, it introduces a pantomime villain grandstanding on a set straight out of Fu Manchu with assistants to match, rather too knowing dialogue and even the immortal "well, at least things can't get any worse!" (Cue creature and Tom Baker hamming it up, not to mention the dodgiest skeleton special effect I've ever seen.) This is a pity, because there is a nuanced and heart breaking performance from Sarrazin as the creature and some splendid production design, not to mention diaphanous women.The central absurdity we are expected to swallow, is the rather unlikely convergence of so many people wanting to raise the dead. The script anticipates this reaction with the scene where Mrs Frankenstein bluffs the local magistrate. Unfortunately, her dogged belief that her husband is still mister right stretches what little credibility the film has left to the outer limits.The chief problem is the science. A severed arm moving without instructions from a brain? The re-animated corpses, the script suggests, are not expected to change physically, as if rendered immortal by the processes they have been subjected to. But flesh is flesh, so how can a heart go on beating when stabbed, or lungs not fill with water when floating mouth agape and seemingly alive in a liquid aquarium? The creature, for instance, retains twenty twenty vision while the rest of him falls apart and his strength remains undiminished. This lack of internal logic soon causes the film to degenerate into something of a witless farrago. It is puzzling as to why Victor does not merely bring his recently deceased colleague back to life rather than transplanting his brain (without misplacing a hair on the creature's head, you'll notice.) After all, Henri Clerval's dodgy ticker would no longer be an issue, as this new race are supernaturally powerful. Likewise, Dr Polidori's despair at the loss of Prima makes little sense. Plop her head back on her body and submerge her in the tank again. The spinal cord issue doesn't appear to be a problem on either monster.There is also a very sloppy bit of directing when Agatha encounters the horse and cart. Watch it, and tell me how it makes sense. Not a great film then, but it does have an unequivocally great ending.