Roger Corman's Frankenstein

First I must admit I have never been a Corman fan - all that spurting blood just never appealed to me. Yet something drew me to this, despite that concern, and I am not sorry I followed my hunch and rented this so many years ago. I tend to read the book either before or instead of watching movies, and Shelly wrote one amazing story. As much as I loved them, Karloff's movies had next to nothing besides the names to do with the book. As far as I am concerned, even though the story clearly does not precisely follow Shelly's tale, it is by far truest to the underlying depth of the book, and quite possibly the only film version that captures her primary theme of personal responsibility. The acting all around was good, especially considering some of the stretches required, and I quite enjoyed the special effects. Without going to wild extremes they were subtly effective and quite haunting. There were, of course, a few of Corman's trademark touches, but they fit the story so well even I could find no objection. As of this writing I have just watched this for the fifth time - quite a record considering I am still not really a Corman fan ;-)

I have to admit, I enjoyed this film, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. This is only the second Roger Corman film I've seen so far, and therefore I can only really compare it to the other film I saw by him, The Terror. I can clearly recognize the directing style, and basic film-making style, but I must say that this is better than The Terror. The plot is pretty good, and fairly interesting, and more original than most other films dealing with Frankenstein. It has a decent enough pace; I wasn't bored for the 90 minutes it lasted. The script is fairly good too, a good twist on the original Frankenstein story, though I guess some fans of the original story wouldn't like the various changes. The acting is good enough, both John Hurt and Raul Julia gives pretty good performances, and the rest of the cast is decent. The characters are fairly well-written and credible. The film has a fairly bad name, it seems; yes, the monster does look more like the result of genetic mutation or something similar, rather than a creature built together by human bodies, and, arguably, the film has several violent scenes that seem to be there mainly to add violence rather than substance to the film, but apart from that, the film is pretty good, at least worth a watch, if only one watch. The effects are decent enough, at least for a film from 1990. The makeup effects and such were also pretty good, I must say that the monster's face, especially the eyes, did send a chill through my spine, the first time he was shown. I liked the various science fiction aspects of the film, and the social commentary was very good, too. The ending was a little weird, but it was a fairly good climax. All in all, a decent enough science fiction/horror drama, and worth one watch, if you can catch it for free. I recommend it to fans of Roger Corman and open-minded fans of Frankenstein and/or horror films in general; just be prepared that it won't be an incredible or very memorable film, just an entertaining 90 minutes, if you're into violent movies without any real purpose. 6/10

With the recent passing of John Hurt, I decided to take another look at his movie "Frankenstein Unbound", despite the fact that I remembered that it disappointed me greatly when I first saw it as a teenager more than twenty five years ago.

Sadly, my opinion upon seeing the movie again wasn't that much more positive than when I first saw it. The best that I can say about it is that the acting is pretty good (especially by Hurt and Raul Julia), and the movie does bring up some ideas and themes that are intriguing and full of promise. But in the end, the movie puts far too much on its plate, and most of these good ideas and themes are either not fully explored or are treated in a pretty disappointing fashion.

As the movie's director (and co-writer of the screenplay), Roger Corman has to shoulder much of the blame for the above problem. But another problem he generates is that often that there is a matter- of-fact feeling to what we are seeing. The tone is aloof and lacking enough conviction and power that could grab an audience. It doesn't help that the production values are highly inconsistent, with the movie wavering between a fairly slick look and feel to one that comes across as cheap and shoddy.

To sum up, it doesn't take long upon watching the movie to figure out why 20th Century-Fox didn't give it much of a theatrical release, and why Corman to date has not sat in the director's chair again after this movie. If you want to see a John Hurt movie or a Roger Corman movie, there are much better choices out there.

I've watched this film several times now and actually, every time I watch it seems to get a little better each time. It's an original concept on the continuance of the Frankenstein myth with some added "modern" futuristic bends and twists that motivate the story along. One of the best thing about this film is John Hurt. This doesn't seem to be his type of movie yet he does very well in it. His voice, especially, is captivating and keeps your attention. He has the type of voice that very few actors these days can boast about in that it has personality and sonority in tone. Something akin to the voices of Colin Clive, Vincent Price and of course, Claude Rains. If they ever decide to do a serious biopic about Rains, I really hope that John Hurt is considered: he'd be perfect for the part! "Yes...I know. Made me from dead. I love dead...hate living." - The Monster in the original 1935 "Bride of Frankenstein"

Legendary independent filmmaker Roger Corman returned to a directors' chair for the first time in almost 20 years with this ambitious, offbeat project, an adaptation of the novel by Brian Aldiss. It's fun to a degree, and certainly interesting, if not a patch on his best work, the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations of the 1960s. Fortunately for him the budget does look like it was bigger on this thing than on some movies in his filmography. That allows for decent production values and a whole smorgasbord of special effects. The main attraction is the cast, especially our two leads, John Hurt and Raul Julia.

Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a scientist whose implosion experiments have created "time slips". Joe himself gets caught in a time slip and is transported back to Victorian times where he chances to meet none other than Dr. Frankenstein (Julia), his monster (Nick Brimble), Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda), Lord Byron (Jason Patrick), and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence, the late singer of the rock band INXS). Joe becomes determined to save the life of Justine Moritz (played by Cormans' daughter Catherine) and ultimately put an end to the monsters' rampage.

As scripted by Corman himself and film historian F.X. Feeney, this is fanciful entertainment that does have a good pace going for it. It is amusing to see characters from far different worlds interacting, although Frankenstein and others in this story adjust extremely well to discovering such things as computers and Joes' ultra-sophisticated car (which comes complete with a sexy female voice supplied by Terri Treas). The effects are frequently cheesy but entertaining, Nick Dudmans' makeup for the monster is good, period recreation is acceptable, and the music by Carl Davis provides just the right touch. How well the ending works may be up to the individual viewer.

Must viewing for all Corman devotees, if only to see the kind of project with which he laid his directorial career to rest.

Six out of 10.