Diagonaldi Very well executed

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Izzy Adkins The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

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!

tonstant viewer "Frankenstein: The True Story" is what happens when a literary adaptation is allowed to run riot over dramatic elements. Christopher Isherwood is a highly respected writer, but someone should have stopped him from this flaccid reverie only partially based on Mary Shelley's story.During the course of the 3-hour version of this TV movie, you can catch the author making heavy-handed references to "Pygmalion," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," "The Hands of Orlac," "Tales of Hoffmann," and "Fu Manchu" among others. It almost turns into a parlor game to catch the petty thefts from other sources.Perhaps the whole thing might have gone better with another director. I've never seen a Jack Smight movie without feeling that he's somehow fumbled it, slack rhythms and the camera often in the wrong place. This too feels like a misfire. Pyrotechnics and lava lamp effects notwithstanding, the great set pieces are uniformly feeble. It's like he doesn't shoot the story, but shoots around it.Smight certainly gets bad performances out of well-remembered actors. James Mason is helplessly inadequate trying to convey the emotion of terror. Agnes Moorehead is over the top, Michael Wilding produces his dazed smile and little more, Margaret Leighton is actively embarrassing, Sir John Gielgud perfunctory and Sir Ralph Richardson's blind hermit is perhaps the worst performance of his film career.I suppose it's not possible to stage the love triangle of Victor Frankenstein, the girl he wants to marry and the male monster he creates without raising an eyebrow from time to time, but this retelling of the tale strongly evokes the sexual ambiguities of Isherwood's "Cabaret." The monster is played not by a hulk but by a hunk, a soulful young stud who loves Mozart opera. The first meeting of Frankenstein and his monster plays like a pickup. The character of Dr. Polidori is openly contemptuous of "mere" women, and it is he, not the monster, who disrupts Victor's wedding night. Generally women come off very badly, the older ones caricatures of old bags, and the younger ones annoying, even nightmarish, in their sexual demands.Despite the starriness of the supporting cast, this film is merely a curiosity. The famous Karloff/Whale version remains the first among equals, and the Oscarsson/Floyd "Terror of Frankenstein" conveys the book the best among the color versions.Unfortunately, Mel Brooks actually gets closer to Mary Shelley's vision than this film does. Only for completists.

nlights I was so pleased and surprised when I saw the DVD of this film for rent recently. I originally saw it on TV back in '73 (I was about 8) and it has stayed with (haunted?) me every since. A number of people have posted about how it made such an impression on them at the time, and I am certainly in that camp. Judging by other comments, it would seem that the only audience that actually watched the whole thing was between the ages of 5 and 10 :}.Anyway, watching it again last night with much more seasoned eyes, I was able to appreciate so many more aspects of this very well done film. While not a direct interpretation of the novel, it is certainly among the top three film versions of the story. It's not what you would call action packed but surprisingly, clocking in at around 3 hours, doesn't drag either, due to a tight script.It would have benifited from more music throughout as it carries a very sparse score. Guess it wasn't in the budget. In this release there was a very crucial scene which didn't match my memory, and I've come to find out that it had been edited. It was a somewhat gory scene but for crying out loud, it was on TV in '73! And we couldn't put it on the DVD now?? I don't get it. Other than those couple of points, it really is a somewhat forgotten classic.

JoeKarlosi A two part television movie which claimed to tell, for the first time anywhere, the genuinely faithful tale of the man who made a creature, exactly as its writer, teenaged Mary Shelley, first concocted it. Well, it may be helpful going in to be forewarned that this isn't really the "true story," but it comes close and what matters most is that it's a good film, albeit one that's three hours long.In this version, young Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) is a medical student thirsting for knowledge, which he gets from the wildly eccentric Dr. Henry Clerval (David McCallum). Clerval has devised a method of restoring dead insects back to life, and his greatest achievement comes when he reanimates a man's severed arm. Frankenstein teams up with Clerval and they are just about to proceed with the ultimate experiment of assembling a complete man from dead bodies and making it live, when Henry dies and Victor is forced to work alone (I'll bet you never knew it wasn't all Frankenstein's idea). The final product is a perfectly attractive male creation (Michael Sarrazin) who has been given Clerval's brain and instantly bonds with Victor, his creator. Frankenstein begins to neglect his fiancé Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) while taking the time to refine his new Adam. Unbeknownst to Victor, before Clerval died he tried to warn Frankenstein that the animation process performed on the first severed arm was actually reversing itself and the flesh was deteriorating. In a short period of time, the once-handsome creature begins to show signs of his skin rotting and upon witnessing this, Frankenstein suddenly loses all interest in his creation and abandons him. The rest of the film carries on with the scorned monster's journey to punish his master. He meets up with a nasty and cunning former associate of Clerval, the elder Dr. Polidori (James Mason), who blackmails Frankenstein into constructing a female named Prima (played by Jane Seymour).This is a lush and well-crafted Victorian period piece, and the story of unrequited love between the creature and his creator is at the core of it. For those who up till now have only been familiar with the classic Boris Karloff image of the flat-headed monster with big boots and bolts in his neck, this is something else entirely. It's touching but also horrifying at times, with a good cast. In addition to Michael Sarrazin's sympathetic work as the creature, David McCallum's obsessive Clerval and James Mason's unscrupulous Polidori (presumably the Ernest Thesiger character in this one) are the best performances. *** out of ****