Reviews

  • Nov 16, 2020

    Interesting take on the original story. Great cast.

    Interesting take on the original story. Great cast.

  • Jun 27, 2019

    The title is a misnomer, but this TV movie presents a more complex and sympathetic version of the creation, production value is extraordinary and delivers some shocks, the star cast is excellent.

    The title is a misnomer, but this TV movie presents a more complex and sympathetic version of the creation, production value is extraordinary and delivers some shocks, the star cast is excellent.

  • Apr 05, 2015

    I had occasion to re-watch this gem recently. It has held up well with some marvelous shocks and some very creepy moments. I'm not sure why this was dubbed "The True Story" since it doesn't follow the Shelley book very well, but the performances are very intense and effective the cast is studded with great stars. There was an alternate ending published in the screenplay paperback of this (which I still have) that I would truly have loved to see included in the tv movie.

    I had occasion to re-watch this gem recently. It has held up well with some marvelous shocks and some very creepy moments. I'm not sure why this was dubbed "The True Story" since it doesn't follow the Shelley book very well, but the performances are very intense and effective the cast is studded with great stars. There was an alternate ending published in the screenplay paperback of this (which I still have) that I would truly have loved to see included in the tv movie.

  • Jun 26, 2013

    Doesn't really match up to the book like the title makes you think, but instead aims are a realistic version. In that case, however, the film is really long and dull. The still manages to hold classic scenes and moments, and some cheap tv effects, but it does get to the point where most of it seems pointless. Drags on for too long, with dull dialog and useless characters. It works in some ways, but not enough for it's 3-hour run time.

    Doesn't really match up to the book like the title makes you think, but instead aims are a realistic version. In that case, however, the film is really long and dull. The still manages to hold classic scenes and moments, and some cheap tv effects, but it does get to the point where most of it seems pointless. Drags on for too long, with dull dialog and useless characters. It works in some ways, but not enough for it's 3-hour run time.

  • Apr 07, 2013

    I first saw this on TV as a kid. I own the DVD. It's the best Frankenstein movie in my opinion.

    I first saw this on TV as a kid. I own the DVD. It's the best Frankenstein movie in my opinion.

  • Apr 23, 2011

    I love that the blurb for this movie praises it for staying true to Mary Shelley's original novel - nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that we have Victor Frankenstein, his creation, and a lot of misery on hand, this bears little resemblance to the original story. It's not bad, though, it's just a different interpretation of a classic story. Though dated, the acting and plot choices add a very interesting spin on the old tale of mad scientist playing around with forces of nature - the "science vs. religion" argument, almost. However, for some reason John Polidori was thrown into the mix (the man who was best known as Lord Byron's physician and also the author of The Vampyre, a short story left unfinished by Byron) as the grand mastermind behind the science. Victor is painted more of an eager student turned victim rather than an egotistical madman, and the creature becomes a demonic Neanderthal. However, it is 3+ hours long, so unless you absolutely adore Shelley's book, or love classic horror, I'll give you a break if you decide to pass.

    I love that the blurb for this movie praises it for staying true to Mary Shelley's original novel - nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that we have Victor Frankenstein, his creation, and a lot of misery on hand, this bears little resemblance to the original story. It's not bad, though, it's just a different interpretation of a classic story. Though dated, the acting and plot choices add a very interesting spin on the old tale of mad scientist playing around with forces of nature - the "science vs. religion" argument, almost. However, for some reason John Polidori was thrown into the mix (the man who was best known as Lord Byron's physician and also the author of The Vampyre, a short story left unfinished by Byron) as the grand mastermind behind the science. Victor is painted more of an eager student turned victim rather than an egotistical madman, and the creature becomes a demonic Neanderthal. However, it is 3+ hours long, so unless you absolutely adore Shelley's book, or love classic horror, I'll give you a break if you decide to pass.

  • Oct 13, 2010

    A just-barely-decent variation on Mary Shelley's novel. It has a great cast, but it's needlessly overlong (a side effect of its TV miniseries origin) and, despite its good intentions, it really does nothing all that interesting with the Frankenstein story.

    A just-barely-decent variation on Mary Shelley's novel. It has a great cast, but it's needlessly overlong (a side effect of its TV miniseries origin) and, despite its good intentions, it really does nothing all that interesting with the Frankenstein story.

  • Jun 03, 2009

    This is an excellent adaptation of Mary Shelly's classic - that is on DVD. The special effects are at time hit-or-miss. I'm not sure if this was originally a BBC production for Masterpiece Theatre but it has that kind of pedigree and production values. Instead of the "Creature" being a monster he starts out being the physically ideal man. Only later when not being able to sustain life in the body of that was a cadaver and begins the process of decay does he turn into a monster. More psychological then any other Frankenstein - it delves into the questions of is this creature soulless, is it a human being and who are responsible for his actions him or his creator Victor Frankenstein. Great performances throughout, but especially from Michael Sarrazin as the creature and Leonard Whiting as his creator, Victor. Victor is torn between his initial rapture and love for his creation, but when the creation begins to reverse he is reviled and disgusted by it. Although, he has the opportunity to destroy the creature - he is torn by the fact that he cannot destroy his creation. The creature in turn is baffled by Victor's initial friendship and treatment as his child and later Victor's utter disgust and hatred of him leading them to an epic journey to the North where each man faces his destiny.

    This is an excellent adaptation of Mary Shelly's classic - that is on DVD. The special effects are at time hit-or-miss. I'm not sure if this was originally a BBC production for Masterpiece Theatre but it has that kind of pedigree and production values. Instead of the "Creature" being a monster he starts out being the physically ideal man. Only later when not being able to sustain life in the body of that was a cadaver and begins the process of decay does he turn into a monster. More psychological then any other Frankenstein - it delves into the questions of is this creature soulless, is it a human being and who are responsible for his actions him or his creator Victor Frankenstein. Great performances throughout, but especially from Michael Sarrazin as the creature and Leonard Whiting as his creator, Victor. Victor is torn between his initial rapture and love for his creation, but when the creation begins to reverse he is reviled and disgusted by it. Although, he has the opportunity to destroy the creature - he is torn by the fact that he cannot destroy his creation. The creature in turn is baffled by Victor's initial friendship and treatment as his child and later Victor's utter disgust and hatred of him leading them to an epic journey to the North where each man faces his destiny.

  • Mar 23, 2009

    Excellent movie. The story as Mary Shelly actually wrote it instead of Hollywood. three hours but worth the effort.

    Excellent movie. The story as Mary Shelly actually wrote it instead of Hollywood. three hours but worth the effort.

  • Robert C Super Reviewer
    Feb 05, 2009

    Keeping in mind that this is a 1973 'Universal Television' version of the story, this was an exceptional (and more realistic) telling of it. If you are able to look past the chessy special effects and (mostly) bad make-up, what you get is a very cerebral (no pun intended) and complex look at a story that is usually told in a very superficial and shallow manner. I was pleasantly surprised.

    Keeping in mind that this is a 1973 'Universal Television' version of the story, this was an exceptional (and more realistic) telling of it. If you are able to look past the chessy special effects and (mostly) bad make-up, what you get is a very cerebral (no pun intended) and complex look at a story that is usually told in a very superficial and shallow manner. I was pleasantly surprised.