Frankenstein: The True Story

source: Frankenstein: The True Story

source: Frankenstein: The True Story

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.

This is a great movie. It has to be one of the best horror movies ever. Because it is best on one of the best horror books ever. The 1931 version is better. The original Frankenstein is really a silent movie from 1910. It not a very good movie. So really this is a great deal better then the original Frankenstein. I am some who enjoys movies more then books. I have read book. This is better. It is very scary. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie has a great story line. This movie also has great acting. This movie also has great special effects. It a very well made movie. It is a must see. It is very intense. It is a great movie.

There is so much in this version, it is hard to know where to begin. The made-for-television look of it is deciving: this is a very radical and unconventional movie. Let's start with the title: FRANKENSTEIN THE TRUE STORY would imply that it is the most faithfull version of Mary Shellys book. Since it isn't, I see the title like a National Inquirer expose. EXTRA! Frankenstein didn't do it all alone! The monster was really beautiful... at first! I'm sure everyones noticed this, but no one has mentioned the strong homosexual subtext. For one, the envy Clarvel feels towards Elizabeth, finding her a thret to the bond he and Victor have. But even more so, the down right erotic birth of the creature and when Victors eyes meet with his! Micheal Sarazin is fetchingly wraped in guaze, looking quite like Rocky in THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW! When the creature starts to lose his looks, Victor is ashamed and trys to ditch the creature so he can marry and have a "normal" life. But his Adam keeps returning to remind him that Victor belongs to him. Everytime they are reunited, the creature greets him with his name "Victor!" with an intense longing betraying sexual desire. In this version, Victor is a loser on all accounts. The creation of life is really mostly the work of Clarvel who stole most of his ideas from Polidori. Frankenstien is a third party who puts a brain in and pulls the switch. The creation destroys his life and he can't even take credit for it! Then the creation of Prima, who becomes a symbolic double for Elizabeth, imatating her much in the way the creature imatated Victor. I could go on forever, but it's late and I gotta get some sleep. Only a full essay (and an unedited DVD version) can do this film justice!

Although this film may digress in many ways from the book, it is nonetheless superb. A fine cast, including Leonard Whiting, Nicola Padgett and guest appearances from many others, rounds out the experience. One empathizes with the monster, who begins his new life as a beautiful, sensitive creature only to physically and aesthetically deteriorate as time goes on. An interesting twist is the subplot of Prima, the second creature, created by Dr. Polidori (Victor's nemesis) with the assistance of Victor...I first saw this movie on television when I was about 9 or 10, I seem to remember it being shown in two parts, the second part beginning with Polidori's attempt to bring Prima into elite society, followed with the downfall of Victor, the monster and Polidori. Really one of my favorite re-tellings of the Frankenstein story.

I rented this movie the other night. I was impressed by how many well known actors were in it. The acting was very good. Leonard Whiting was very convincing and seemed to really share a bond with his monster. The monster didn't seem to be all that evil until people started being mean to it. I think the movie tried to show us that beauty is only skin deep. Jane Seymour was excellent. I recommend this movie highly, it is very well done.

I saw this movie when it was originally aired on TV in 1972. It was aired in two parts, each night 2 hours long. It was either October 30 & 31 or October 31 & November 1 1972.( I think it was the later) Anyway I loved it. Even though this film was made by Universal, it is a different kind of film from 1930s the Karloff incarnation. Anyway I was delighted to see it available on video and snatched it right up. Ugh! It was a 2 hour edited version that was shown theatrically in Europe back in the early 1970s. AVOID this version! If you have only seen this edited version, you don't know what your missing. Unlike a lot of what today we call "mini series'" Frankenstein the True story really moves and the story is not padded. The screenplay by Christopher Isherwood is much better than the usual mini series. With the movie cut by 40% you miss so much. In fact watching it edited, it seemed just plain choppy. The full version significantly adds to the audiences' understanding of the monster's actions and reactions to his maker and the female creation Prima. Possible spoiler:(Jane Seymour plays Prima as part of a dual role. She is very good in this film. I have been a fan of hers ever since. You'll swear Prima has real evil in her eyes. Also in a small part is the fourth Dr. Who, Tom Baker as a Ship captain.) Bottom line: If possible find the COMPLETE version and avoid the 2 hour video. If you liked the edited version, finding the full version( if its even commercially available) will be well worth the search.

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.

I remember seeing the original broadcast of this two-part miniseries back in '73, and how impressed I was by the cast and the writing. Witty, literate, touching and horrifying by turns, it definitely set a pretty high standard for itself just by the title alone, yet then proceeded to exceed that standard, which is something that few movies ever do, let alone those made for television. The all-star British/American cast and the production design gave it the old-time feel of early films from both the Universal and Hammer Studios genres, yet the sharp writing by Don Bachardy and Christopher Isherwood lent an almost Merchant-Ivory sense of credibility that most films of this kind can't even hope to pull off. Even more surprising that the director, Jack Smight, was better known for his work on television series and disaster films than on something as well-crafted as this. And the performances...In a cast of well-seasoned veterans, it's almost impossible to cite stand-out favorites, but if I had to, Michael Sarrazin's Creature is one of the most outstanding to be introduced out of the many versions, and definitely the most multi-layered and sympathetic, (which would not be equalled until twenty-years on, by Clancy Brown in the less-superior THE BRIDE.) Worth equal praise is the rivalry between David McCallum, Leonard Whiting and the always-dependable James Mason as the brilliantly twisted Dr. Polidori (affectionately known now and forever as "Polly-dolly.") And what review would be complete without mentioning Jane Seymour as Prima. I won't spoil the shock and surprise involved with her character and Sarrazin's, but needless to say that was ONE scene that made quite an impression on my young mind, (and for those who remember, you know EXACTLY which part I'm referring to!) It was quite an introduction to a lovely young ingenue, who would become even more memorable to American audiences less than a year later with her big screen debut, as Bond girl Solitaire in Roger Moore's initial 007 outing, LIVE AND LET DIE. It may not exist in its original form, as previous reviewers have pointed out, but one can only hope for a newly restored and uncut DVD version of this classic TV gem. In an age of bloated, overproduced blockbusters like TITANIC and PEARL HARBOR, the 240-minute version of this outstanding drama would be more than worth your time. Now here's hoping we'll get the opportunity to see it again, as it was intended.