Terror of Frankenstein

Forget the hype about MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1993) and FRANKENSTEIN THE TRUE STORY (1974) being the most faithful versions. This neglected Swedish-Irish co-production is still the only movie that's a sincere attempt to accurately portray the characters, events and prevailing mood of Mary Shelley's novel. In fact, it's a lot closer to the original story than any of the other movie versions. Victor Frankenstein (the perfectly cast Leon Vitali) is presented as an intense, moody, headstrong, somewhat neurotic medical student whose tunnel-visioned sense of righteousness is shattered when he sees his Monster awaken for the first time and suddenly feels only horror. As in the book, Victor is completely unable to face the consequences of his experiment, trying at first to convince himself that he must have dreamed the whole thing and then simply running away from it all and pretending nothing ever happened. It isn't that easy for the Monster (Per Oscarsson), who is also much nearer to Shelley's concept of the character than in most movies. Instead of a growling robotic killer, Oscarsson's Monster is an accurate portrayal of the confused, desperate and reasonably intelligent creature described in the novel. He only becomes a hateful, bitter, resentful fiend after he's had plenty of time to think about who and what he is. Oscarsson is one of the best Frankenstein Monsters in movie history in terms of performance, but he has to work hard to overcome the entry-level monster makeup he wears. There are no bloody stitches, neck bolts or misshapen features here, and one wishes they had made his appearance a little more monstrous. His main physical shortcomings are black lips, red-rimmed eyes and a sallow complexion, making it seem more likely that the 'normal' people he meets would view him as a sick person in need of medical attention instead of reacting with fear and total revulsion when they see him. We learn almost nothing of the nature of Frankenstein's experiments in this telling, which eschews most of the medical/surgical/electrical details common in movies. Again, that's following the original text's example, as very little in the way of scientific detail was discussed in the book. About the only element of the Monster's creation that will be familiar to movie audiences is the fact that Frankenstein uses a kite to attract a bolt of lightning to infuse his creation with life. The creation scene, usually the highpoint of Frankenstein movies, is handled in a strangely offhand, nonchalant manner here. It's mostly offscreen and happens very quickly with hardly any buildup. Many passages have very little dialogue and even background music is used sparingly, creating an oddly sedate atmosphere. The period setting and scenery are superb and help to ensure that even the slow parts are watchable. Many of the indoor scenes have a nicely spooky, dramatically shadowy lighting scheme, one of this (very literal) film's few concessions to gothic horror tradition. Don't expect pulse-pounding action or spectacular visual effects, but if you'd like to experience a thoughtful, authentic looking, well-acted version of the classic tale that faithfully follows the source material and treats it respectfully, this is definitely worth watching. It's also known as VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and it was released in the U. S. by Independent-International, even though it's a far cry from their usual horror fare (BRAIN OF BLOOD, DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS, etc.).

One of the more faithful adaptations (though that doesn't say much) of Mary Shelley's novel, this film is worth a look if you can see it without spending much money...particularly if you're a fan of the book, as I am. It does, unfortunately, leave out some key points of the novel, but not as many as most adaptations.

Cinematically, the film is rather drab. Too many sustained static shots and a rather sparse score bog the film down a bit, and the acting is too uneven. Some performances are great, while others are mediocre, and a few are simply bad.

Overall, the film feels a bit uneven and minimalistic, but it doesn't stray into some of the ridiculous areas that many Frankenstein films do. If only the direction were a bit more lively and the running time a bit longer (in order to include more of the important notes from the novel), it could have been a great film.

One considerable step down from Kenneth Branaugh's 1994 adaptation.

I had always been intrigued by this Swedish-Irish production(!) - a follow-up to the same film-makers' lackluster IN SEARCH OF Dracula (1975) - for being the screen's most faithful rendering (even more so than the disappointing "official" 1994 adaptation by Francis Ford Coppola and Kenneth Branagh) of the oft-filmed Mary Shelley horror tale; while it is decidedly uninspired and choppy in treatment, its essentially literate and stately approach makes the most of the novel's classical plot and, as a result, it remains full of interest throughout. At first, I felt that Leon Vitali – who, after appearing in BARRY LYNDON (1975), became Stanley Kubrick's long-time assistant! – was too youthful in appearance to be convincing in the title role but one must remember that, after all, he was supposed to be a medical student. On the other hand, distinguished Swedish actor Per Oscarsson (whose face is effectively made up in a deathly pallor complete with darkened lips) brings out all of the creature's various qualities: an imposing build, his confusion and solitude and, eventually, a lust for vengeance towards his resentful maker. Though obviously a low-budget effort, the film still manages to approximate the narrative's epic sweep without, however, resorting to overstatement – a fault which lies at the heart of the later 'definitive' Hollywood version's artistic (and commercial) failure. For the record, even though I am familiar with many another film version of the famous story, there are still a few more which I need to see, namely the 1973 Dan Curtis TV-adaptation, the darkly-comic modern French take of Alain Jessua's FRANKENSTEIN '90 (1984) and the futuristic Roger Corman version, FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (1990).

This very sober and (comparatively speaking) faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel stints on the usual horror aspects, but isn't that compelling on subtler psychological or dramatic terms to compensate. Per Oscarsson, cast as the re-animated "monster," is a fine actor who'd been extraordinary in Swedish classics like "Hunger." But even though the movie spends more time detailing the monster's cruel education in "humanity" than most, he still isn't allowed the depth needed to give a fully dimensionalized performance. (It doesn't help that Per isn't much tricked-out in makeup terms beyond black lipstick, and is forced to speak phonetic English.) Plus the desired pathos falls short, not to mention the expected suspense or shock value this film utterly fails to achieve. Nonetheless, it's watchable as a rare serious stab at addressing the novel rather than simply exploiting its cinematic heritage. The scenery is spectacular, the performances decent, the direction intelligently measured if lacking real atmosphere or excitement. I appreciated it--just wish it were better.

Though it's been a number of years since I've seen this movie, it still leaves an impression as the best and most faithful adaption of Mary Shelley's wonderful book. The two leads were very well cast. It's a shame no one else I know has seen it. This film is way better than Branagh's "rock and roll" version (even though DeNiro was great as the monster).