Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Adam Foidart This 1992 version of "Frankenstein" tries to mix up the familiar story by changing a lot of details, with mixed results. Some of the changes are made for budgetary reasons, other stylistically and some just baffled my mind. One of the changes made is that the monster (Randy Quaid) is not pieced together from bodies collected from slaughter houses and dissection rooms, but is created in what I can only describe as a "duplication chamber". Also notable is that the creature learns to speak English by befriending a blind old man in the woods. The old man thinks it to be a foreigner that does not speak English and teaches him how to talk. It's an acceptable substitution for spying on a family that is teaching one of its members to read and write English, like in the original story. Some changes, like creating a psychic bond between the creature and Victor Frankenstein (Patrick Bergin) are problematic, create plot holes and huge leaps of logic in the story. It's too bad that it was handled poorly because if it had been executed well it could have been interesting. I also have to admit that while the duplication chamber thing is kind of a neat special effect, it doesn't work. The main problem I had with it was that because the monster starts off as a perfect clone of the doctor there had to be convoluted ways for the creature to become disfigured to make the rest of the story work. It just didn't lend itself well to this story.The film has some decent performances, but the plot is inconsistent in its quality and so loosely based on the novel it could almost be its own, unrelated thing. Some elements are introduced then immediately dropped or hastily discarded without much logic. Early on for example, Victor Frankenstein shows us that he is able to create entirely new species of animals by splicing a cat and a snake together and by creating a porcupine/rabbit hybrid. That entire scene comes out of nowhere and is never brought up again. I'm pretty sure it was only included to show off some special effects.Overall this 1992 film is more of a curiosity than a significant addition to the ever-growing amount of Frankenstein-related material. It might be enjoyed by hardcore fans of the book and story of "Frankenstein" that are simply looking for something different. If that's you by the way, check out "Frankenstein Conquers the World", that is one wacky "sequel" to the original novel. Unlike that film though, there isn't much remarkable about this version of "Frankenstein". At times it's hilariously bad so you can easily skip this one. (On VHS, August 31, 2012)

dtucker86 There have been so many versions of this story made that it would almost seem superflous to make another, yet this is the best version that I have seen because it is the most faithful to Mary Shelly's book. I saw the classic 1931 version where Karloff was the monster and he would have been proud of Quaid's performance. People who know Randy Quaid only for his role as "Cousin Eddie" in the Chevy Chase vacation films would be astounded by his fine work here. He does a remarkable job of making the monster both scary and pitiful as society treats him so badly. He screams at Frankentstein "Why did you make me like this". The scene where he murders Frankenstein's family is the most disturbing part of the film. This is a great film and with the exception of Karloff's version, it is the best Frankenstein that I have ever seen.

elsbed-1 I really enjoyed this movie, far, far more than the over the top Kenneth Branagh version. Randy Quaid is fabulous as the monster. I particularly loved the monster in this film, as he was very sweet and childlike until he had negative experiences with humans. His expressions were very poignant and heartfelt. Also, the concept of Frankenstein feeling his monster's pain was original and interesting. Definitely impressive for a made-for-tv movie!

Manna-2 So there we lay on a cold, dismal day wondering what the hell to watch. Finally, we decided on another made for TV movie entitled, "Frankenstein" (1993). This 116-minute adaptation of Mary Shelley's most famous novel starred Randy Quaid as the misunderstood monster. Yes folks, that's Randy "Are you sh**ting me, Clark?" Quaid. Mr. Quaid actually does very well with the character and I am not ashamed to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Who Knew? The movie tells the somewhat overdone, yet classic, story of Dr. Victor Frankenstein and his dubious research involving the attempt to create life on his own. I will say that it was not as annoying as Kenneth Branaugh's interpretation in the sense that it was not as overacted with all those annoying "We are so happy we will run around like idiots" scenes. Don't get me wrong, Branaugh's adaptation held its own brand of charm but its hectic nature was somewhat unbearable. One thing I would like to know is how come they always pick a butt-ugly woman to play Frankenstein's ill-fated fiancée', Elizabeth? I mean, Woah! The actress playing the role in this version was hideous. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it was hard to pay attention to the movie when all we could think about was MAN that chick is FOUL! Surprisingly, this film contained a good bit of gore as, after all, it was made for television. And I will say the method they used for making the monster was original and kind of fascinating. Check it out if you are not yet too bored with the story line of "Doctor screws up playing God"!