Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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.

gftbiloxi Every film version of FRANKENSTEIN has taken tremendous liberties with Mary Shelly's celebrated 1818 novel, and although it retains the core idea of the book this one is no exception. Produced for television by Universal Studios in 1973, the film contains a host of characters and ideas that draw more from previous film versions than from the original novel. More interestingly, however, it introduces a number of distinctly original concepts as well.Simply stated, the film has a highly disconcerting and surprisingly overt homo-erotic edge. Instead of the inevitable "mad doctor" typical of films, Victor Frankestein is a remarkably handsome young man in the form of actor Leonard Whiting, a performer best known as Romeo in the famous 1968 ROMEO AND JULIET. He is seduced into the experiment by the equally handsome but distinctly odd Henry Clerval (David McCallum)--and not only do the two actors play the relationship in a disquietingly touchy-feely way, Clerval takes exception to Victor's fiancée Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) and she returns the favor, demanding that Victor choose between them.Lest any one miss the implications, the creature is played by none other than Michael Sarrazin, and while many men may be described as handsome, Sarrazin is among the few who can be justly described as beautiful. He arises from the laboratory table barely decent in a few strategically placed bandages, and when his facial covering is pulled aside by the eager Dr. Frankenstein we are treated to a lingering image of glossy black hair, pale complexion, remarkably liquid eyes, and lips that would make Vogue model weep with envy. Dr. Frankenstein takes him to his own apartment, where he educates this child-like innocent and very generously allows the creature to sleep in his own bed.But, as in all FRANKENSTEIN movies, the experiment goes awry, and when it does the same disconcerting homo-erotic overtones take yet another turn. Due to some unknown error in the creation process, the creature begins to deteriorate in appearance--and instead of continuing to treat him kindly, Frankenstein keeps the creature locked up, becomes verbally abusive to him, and no longer allows the creature to sleep in his bed, relegating him to a cramped mattress on the floor. At the same time, Frankenstein is approached by the mysterious Dr. Polidori (the legendary James Mason), an oily scientist with a flair for hypnosis who claims to know what went wrong.Polidori insists that they abandon the creature and create a new one: a woman, and when this new creation emerges from an entirely different process she too is remarkably beautiful; indeed, she is none other than Jane Seymour. But whereas the original creature was a gentle creature who only learned violence from Frankenstein's hateful rejection, this new entity is strangely icy, almost snake-like from the very beginning--and the male creature, now both vicious and wildly jealous, will exact a horrific toll upon all concerned.It is worth pointing out that the script for this version of FRANKENSTEIN was co-authored by Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986), one of the few openly gay writers of his era. Sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular forms a theme in many of Isherwood's works, so it would seem reasonable to assume that he was responsible for the homo-erotic elements of the film. Jack Smight's direction does not offer anything nearly so interesting as the script, but it is workman-like, and while the production values tend to be a shade too baroque for their own good one never lacks for something to look at on the screen.The cast is also quite good. At the time, the film was looked upon as a "television event," and it drew a host of noted actors, including John Gielgud and Agnes Moorehead. No one would accuse Leonard Whiting of being a great screen talent, but he acquits himself very well; so too does David McCallum, Nicola Pagett, and the always memorable James Mason. But the real knock-out performances here are by Sarrazin and Seymour, who truly blow the lid off our ideas of what a FRANKENSTEIN movie should be--and when they square off the result is unsettling in a truly unexpected way. In terms of the DVD itself, the film quality is considerably better than the rare late-night showings I've occasionally seen on television, but I would not describe it as pristine, and I found I frequently had to bump up the volume on the soundtrack.If you are looking for something with which to scare yourself silly, you might want to give this version FRANKENSTEIN a miss; although it has a few visceral moments, the jolts involved are largely psycho-sexual. But if you are open to the sexually subversive, which is particularly unexpected in a made-for-television film from 1973, you couldn't make a better choice. Recommended.GFT, Amazon Reviewer

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.

MARIO GAUCI I had always wanted to watch this after reading about it in Alan Frank's book "Horror Films", but missed out on it on Italian TV as a kid. When it was announced for DVD release, I pre-ordered it (despite being a bare-bones affair) but, after reading the first negative review - via DVD Talk, as there was mention of poor video quality and even edited footage - I almost cancelled it outright! However, having watched it myself, I found no complaints with the former and, being a first viewing, I had no opinion about the latter - to be honest, Frank's description of The Creature ripping out Prima's head from her body had fired up my imagination all these many years, and found the scene as is in the film something of a let-down, but I couldn't verily say if it was trimmed or not; likewise, I felt that the opening sequence (the drowning of Frankenstein's younger brother) was too abrupt, i.e. without having taken the time to create a genuine rapport between the two (which would have made Victor's subsequent obsession with bringing the dead back to life that much more purposeful!)...but, again, I don't know if it has always been this way or if it originally ran longer!! The prologue was a mistake, in my opinion, as it feels awkward - like a Theatrical Trailer attached to the beginning of a movie, complete with spoilers galore! Obviously, I've watched countless adaptations of the Mary Shelley classic along the years - and it's always interesting to see the way in which the original text is 're-invented' by the various writers and film-makers; this epic, star-studded production is certainly among the most intelligent, literate renditions (co-scripted by Christopher Isherwood) although, to be honest, I found it most compelling during the first hour or so; maybe that's because I was used to seeing a hulking, misunderstood creature rather than the dapper and relatively inconspicuous one depicted here! Besides, David MacCallum's contribution is so strong (I had seen him in a few films and TV shows, but nothing as impressive as this!) during these initial stages that when his character is killed off, immediately prior to the first creation scene, it never fully recovers!! Still, James Mason's Dr. Polidori makes for a great villain in the Praetorius tradition (though nothing so campy as Ernest Thesiger); in fact, even if the character is somewhat overwritten (coming off as a power-mad evil genius more akin to Fu Manchu than anything else, flanked by a couple of Asian henchmen no less!), Mason's playing is generally understated throughout - yet effortlessly dominating every scene he's in. Leonard Whiting isn't bad as Frankenstein, simply too youthful for the role - displaying none of the intensity of Colin Clive or the fastidiousness of Peter Cushing. Michael Sarrazin, as I said before, makes for a rather unalarming creature - though his subsequent physical and mental deterioration provides some undeniably effective moments (such as in the afore-mentioned scene with Prima, the unsuccessful attempt by Polidori and Frankenstein to destroy him, and the doomed sea voyage at the finale); that said, it appears that the conception itself of The Creature has problems: at first, MacCallum's Henry Clerval complains that he has been saddled with a peasant's brain for his creation and, yet when Frankenstein eventually substitutes it with that of Clerval himself, Sarrazin still emerges an illiterate - until the very end when he unaccountably starts reasoning the way Clerval would have and is even able to guide the ship to the Arctic (it somehow doesn't feel right that Prima receives schooling whereas The Creature does not, or rather learns precious little from his various misadventures, such as the encounter with the blind hermit or his sojourn with Polidori - when both these incidents, as depicted in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935], had proved crucial to The Creature's formation of character)! One of the most satisfying aspects to the film is the unusually strong participation of the female leads, both of whom add effortless grace to the proceedings but also deliver fine performances: Nicola Pagett is certainly the most significant Elizabeth I have seen, while Jane Seymour appears in a 'dual' role as the blind hermit's grand-daughter and the mischievous, sexy Prima (The Creature's female counterpart whom Dr. Polidori proposes to integrate into affluent London society, for his own sinister ends, with disastrous consequences). The supporting cast is chosen with an eye to adding further distinction to the production if little else, as none of the various thespians are particularly taxed by the brief roles they have been offered! The film was made by Universal, interestingly enough, but shooting took place in London (to where the story itself is, bafflingly, re-set for the most part!). Even if director Smight didn't usually dabble in the horror genre, he managed the task competently enough - though the end result is essentially uninspired, and too genteel in the long run; nevertheless, he's aided immeasurably in the visual stakes by the sterling contribution of cinematographer Arthur Ibbetson and production designer Wilfred Shingleton.