ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Michael_Elliott Frankenstein (1984) ** (out of 4)Elizabeth (Carrie Fisher) becomes worried that her fiancé Victor Frankenstein (Robert Powell) is spending too much time with his experiments. It turns out he's creating a human (David Warner) out of body parts and trying to bring it back to life.This made-for-television British film isn't exactly the best version of the story that you're going to see but it does feature a nice cast as well as a couple good scenes that make it tolerable. At the same time, there's no question that there's not enough here to make it worth watching unless you're like me and want to see every version of the story out there.There are some major issues with the film with the biggest being the fact that the direction is rather lackluster and there's just no style or energy to the picture. The movie is about as laid back as you can get and it doesn't help that it moves at a very slow pace. Even at just 73-minutes the movie drags in spots and there's no question that it needed a lot more life.I thought Powell was rather bland as Frankenstein and Fisher is even worse as Elizabeth. She doesn't even try for an accent and she just wasn't right for the part. John Gielgud appears briefly as the blind hermit but this scene just doesn't have much of an impact. Warner was good as the monster and he's certainly one of the highlights of the picture.I did find the ending to be good and there's a great sequence where the monster confronts his maker and asks questions about why he's the way he is. This scene was beautifully done and one wishes the rest of the picture had the magic of this scene.

jacobjohntaylor1 This a great film. It is very scary. Doctor Frankenstein creates a monster out of dead body parts. Best on the best horror book ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. This has great story line. It also has great story line. This movie also has great acting. This movie has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie then know movie will scary you. Robert Pwell is a great actor. For get Jesuse of Nazareth this is his best film. David Warner is a great actor. Titanic is great film. This is better. Carrie Fisher is a great actress. Star wars is a great film. This is better. This is not as good as Frankenstein (1931) but it is close to being has good. This a great remake.

bensonmum2 Frankenstein (1984) is yet another of the seemingly endless versions of the Frankenstein story. This one was apparently made for British television. The director, James Ormerod, has put together a nice little movie given the obvious limitations to his budget.I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.

Hessian499 This British version of Frankenstein suffers from a low budget, and it shows its lack of funding at times, but is actually not a bad movie. It does have the atmosphere of a TV movie, so it is somewhat hard to compare it to other film versions of the Frankenstein story. The makeup on the monster is rather hideous, but looks like something a novice could apply. For a low budget film, it does have great sets and period costumes. Carrie Fisher has less of a role than she is billed for but is still quite pretty and charming in this film (she does a good British accent for a native Californian). All in all, this version of Frankenstein is not nearly the classic the 1931 version was, but is entertaining and worth watching.