Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Lawson Omg zzz. I bought this DVD partly because of its high rating on IMDb and partly because I'm an Agnes Moorehead fan but wow, it was mostly boring and Moorehead only had a tiny part. I have to qualify that it was probably more boring to me than others because of my impatience with fine literature, even if it's a movie adaptation of it. By all accounts, this movie is a faithful reproduction of Mary Shelley's novel, but like with faithful adaptations of Shakespeare's plays for example, it just made me want to sleep. Otherwise, it was a pretty good production. The sets looked great, and the movie had a pretty famous cast. I was most taken with Jane Seymour's Prima - gorgeous but with an edge, like something evil lurks beneath the surface - quite a perfect Bride of Frankenstein.

MartinHafer This version of Frankenstein was shown on television in two parts back in 1973. The film starts with a prologue by James Mason that was, for the most part, completely unnecessary. In addition, it shows various clips of the movie that tend to ruin the film to a degree. My advice is skip this and go right to the film.As for the title, it implies that this is closer to Mary Shelley's original story and in most ways it is closer than other versions---in particular, the famous 1931 version. However, while much closer, a lot of additional material was added and by the two hour mark, it really deviates into a strange direction indeed. I really wish someone would make a version EXACTLY like the book, but so far I have no knowledge of anyone who has done this. The biggest difference the original tale and films have is that the films always spend a lot of time on how the Doctor created his monster--whereas in the book, there's very little about this. Instead, the book emphasizes the lack of responsibility the creator plays towards his creation--the true purpose of the novel. And, fortunately, this movie does focus on this quite a bit...as well as the creation of the monster.As for the "monster", an interesting choice was made for this film. Instead of the usual hideous man covered in stitches, the producers decided to hire handsome leading man Michael Sarrazin for the role. Initially, he is a very handsome creation--receiving the admiration of others. However, in a very interesting twist, the creation begins to decompose and morph slowly--and then becomes the hideous creature. I liked this approach--as it was very novel and offered something different.As the man begins to decompose and lose his prettiness, at the same time you slowly see the Doctor become more and more distant from his creation--losing his temper and treating him shabbily. Frankenstein's acting like a jerk is excellent--and more in keeping with the novel--something often forgotten in other versions of the story. In other words, the creation becoming a monster was the result of his being rejected by his creator--not just because he was ugly--though the rejection was not as complete here as in the book.On his own, the monster is befriended by a blind guy (Ralph Richardson) and this ends in the tragic deaths of his family. For some odd reason, the monster wants the now dead daughter of Richardson (Jan Seymour) to be brought back to life. But, for an even odder reason, instead of taking him to Frankenstein, he brings him to Mason who has been wanting to make his own undead freak. This portion of the film is as far removed from the original story as you can get and the film only gets back to the original story after the whole "Dr. Polidori" segment is complete.It turns out that Mason was an evil mad scientist (unlike Frankenstein who was just a misguided and irresponsible mad scientist), as he decided to use Sarrazin for his own end--to force Frankenstein to help him make another, and hopefully better, creation using the body of Seymour (among others). After the newest creation comes to life, there is an extended portion of the film involving Seymour--who is a bit of a conniving nympho and nutter! It's as if Seymour is doing a warm-up for her later role in the TV mini-series "East of Eden"! Now, following an attempt by Polidori and Frankenstein to murder the creature, it's no wonder that Sarrazin's character goes insane and starts to do bad things!! How this ends comes as a rather nasty surprise, that's for sure! But, as I said before, none of this bears any resemblance to the original novel and it all seems a bit histrionic.Now, after two and a half hours, the film finally returns to the book's plot--consisting of a drawn-out portion where the creation goes about destroying the life of his creator. Ultimately, it takes the film to the Arctic for a final showdown--something few movies ever bothered to do, but which was an important part of Shelley's story.Overall, it was a very enjoyable and lavish film. Unfortunately, it also was NOT the "true story" it purported itself to be, as at times it bore little semblance to Shelley's novel.Interestingly, 1973 was a banner year for made for TV Frankenstein films (in addition to the freaky Andy Warhol version). In addition to this film, "Wide World Mystery" (ABC) also made their own version that lacked the budget and cast this film had, but which had a much more interesting and sympathetic monster--and, in my opinion, was a better film. I say that you should see them both, though, as they are both very well made in their own way.By the way, there were a few goofy moments in the film despite it being a pretty good movie. First, watching human limbs retain 'memories' and have the ability to crawl about independently was pretty stupid. It may have looked neat, but just made me groan. Second, the hypnosis scene with James Mason and Agnes Moorehead was also pretty silly--no one can hypnotize anyone like this! Third, while Michael Sarrazin's creature was not too pretty later in the film, he was not THAT ugly and people's reactions to him seemed pretty absurd. I especially laughed when Agnes Moorehead saw him and had a fit and died!!! Talk about silly! And the lightning bolt turning Polidori into an instant skeleton! Ha!

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

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.