Victor Frankenstein

The first time I saw this movie was when I was eleven...; my father said to me " both the cast and director are unknown, but see it...". He was right; this is a peacefully film, full of landscapes and brilliant moments... Per Oscarsson is a big-heart monster, sometimes sober, sometimes frightening... I think that is the best of all Frankensteins, because is ACTUALLY accurate to the novel...Calvin Floyd tries to make a different and real(real here means "the tale written by Mary Shelley")Frankenstein, and he doesn´t fail... So is very far from Whale, Branagh(what a catastrophe he made!) and of course, Warhol.

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.

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).

Greetings and salutations, and welcome to my review of 1977s Terror Of Frankenstein.

Before I get into the review, here are my ratings for the movie.

The story gets 1.5 out of 2: The Direction a 1.5: The Pacing receives a 1.5: While the Performances get 1.5: And my Enjoyment level earns a 1.5 out of 2: Terror Of Frankenstein, therefore, receives a total of 7.5 out of 10.

To begin with, I'm getting controversial: Terror Of Frankenstein is one of my favourite adaptations of the Mary Shelley story. I can see I may be in the minority here on IMDb. Consequently, can I back up my statement? Well, let's see.

Writers, Calvin and Yvonne Floyd stay true to Shelley's classic in story, motivation, and atmosphere. There's a very tangible dark and depressing feel to this creation. I appreciate the way we comprehend nothing about Frankenstein's monster. In previous adaptations, the scriptwriters give reasons for the reanimated man's evilness. But here, the Floyd's don't offer any reason because there is no evident reason. In all truth, he sees himself as a monster because the people around him regard him as such. When in all actuality, he's a newborn man struggling to grow and learn. His creator Frankenstein is a coward and runs from his creation, hoping he's dead or just a fever dream. Driven by a deep and unearthly urge, his creation travels through the county, country, and the world, searching for his master. What he uncovers is a man with a family who loves him and who he loves back. Why can't the man who fathered him offer him similar consideration? When he realises this will never happen, he strikes a deal with Frankenstein; construct a woman for him, and they will live out their days away from humankind. Regrettably, Frankenstein reneges on his deal. Leaving his creation to adopt the attitude of, if you want a monster, then you get a monster. So begin the slaughters.

Calvin Floyd also directed this film and maintained the boundaries of his emotional story. Terror of Frankenstein is not a fast and glorified and pretty Hollywood picture. Floyd sets the pace to slow and moody, which works well to reveal the creature at his best. He throws in some wintry vistas that depict the loneliness and desolation, not only of the surrounding area but of Frankenstein and his creation.

There are times when the tempo picks up a little; these are principally around the action sequences. Regrettably, they don't add much excitement. It's a pleasing aspect of the tale because it's not about excitation but the characters and their journeys. Floyd is a dab hand at using natural lighting and dark shadows to their best advantage. The effect of the lighting doubles due to his composition skill. Terror of Frankenstein is a perfectly constructed piece of filmmaking, and Floyd should be rightly proud of it.

The lack of special effects may cause people to place this film on ice. But remember, this isn't an FX-flick. The creature himself is nothing but Per Oscarsson in whiteish make-up and a slightly droopy eye. This creation is a reanimated corpse and not a cross-stitched mess of body parts with a damaged brain. It's Oscarsson who has to develop the audience's belief in the creations persona. He achieves this superbly. He gives the creature an air of melancholy, sadness, loss, and loneliness. I perceived myself supporting him more than Frankenstein.

Leon Vitali portrays Frankenstein and delivers a decent rendition of the driven genius. You can see Frankenstein considers interests most beneficial to humanity. Regrettably, it's his drive that takes his final experiment too far. Realising his mistake, he runs away like a coward, only to later find his backbone and hunt down his creation. Vitali portrays all these emotions superbly.

I would gladly recommend this version of Mary Shelley's story for everyone to watch. You have to bear in mind that the film is slow. The leisurely pace may not be for everyone: There's no bare-chested star swinging through the rafters, which isn't a terrible thing to do without. I have watched my share of boring films, and this is not one of them. Not once did my attention shift from the screen. Granted, there are some thing's that could have been handled better, like Frankenstein and Elizabeth's romance, which needed more romance. And a few scenes needed more suspense to work perfectly. These moments are few, though.

Take Care & Stay Well.

Jump on your dog sledge and mush your way on over to my Absolute Horror, The Final Frontier, and Obsidian Dreams lists to see where Frankenstein's creation caught up with his creator.