Frankenstein: The True Story (1973 TV Movie) User Reviews

Frankenstein: The True Story (1973) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 8/10 · 1 October 2006]

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 ****

Very good...but still not exactly Mary Shelley's vision.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 9 January 2010]

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!

Fresh and inventive Frankenstein adaptation

[fertilecelluloid · 8/10 · 16 October 2006]

Full-blooded telling of the Frankenstein story manages to be fresh and original and sustains its running time. There are several terrific performances and possibly the most sympathetic, tragic portrayal of the monster ever by Michael Sarrazin. Dr. Henry Clerval (David McCallum) enlists the services of brilliant surgeon Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) to help him create a human being from body parts. As everybody knows, the experiment hits a hiccup and "The Creature" goes bananas. But when Dr. John Pilodori (James Mason) steps up to the plate to construct a second creature with Frankenstein's aid, the drama hits its stride and all hell breaks loose. Some of that "hell" is the understandable anger of Frankenstein's bride (Nicola Pagett), who is forced to spend her wedding night alone while hubby is busy giving life to dead things in his hillside lab. Mason is incredible as the obsessed, insane Polidori, the film's true villain, and does a good job of making us (the audience) loathe the very sight of him. Pagett is strong as the frustrated but devoted wife, and Whiting is a memorable Frankenstein. Also worthy of praise is Ralph Richardson who breathes much life into the role of the Blind Hermit. Sarrazin, however, is a revelation as the decaying, angry, emotionally distraught experiment gone wrong. Because we have seen him proud and happy, it is horrible to watch him physically disintegrate and become persona non grata in the Frankenstein lab. During the creation of Jane Seymour's "Bride", it was devastating to see the dejected Sarrazin witnessing the process, knowing his time had already come and gone. Later, the scene in which he crashes a party and beheads a key character is a classic horror moment and manages to be emotional and grotesque. Aside from the last scene, which has an inexplicable abruptness to it, this is a fantastic Frankenstein adaptation.

If you thought you'd seen it all...

[cchase · 6 August 2003]

I remember seeing the original broadcast of this two-part miniseries back in '73, and how impressed I was by the cast and the writing. Witty, literate, touching and horrifying by turns, it definitely set a pretty high standard for itself just by the title alone, yet then proceeded to exceed that standard, which is something that few movies ever do, let alone those made for television.

The all-star British/American cast and the production design gave it the old-time feel of early films from both the Universal and Hammer Studios genres, yet the sharp writing by Don Bachardy and Christopher Isherwood lent an almost Merchant-Ivory sense of credibility that most films of this kind can't even hope to pull off.

Even more surprising that the director, Jack Smight, was better known for his work on television series and disaster films than on something as well-crafted as this.

And the performances...In a cast of well-seasoned veterans, it's almost impossible to cite stand-out favorites, but if I had to, Michael Sarrazin's Creature is one of the most outstanding to be introduced out of the many versions, and definitely the most multi-layered and sympathetic, (which would not be equalled until twenty-years on, by Clancy Brown in the less-superior THE BRIDE.) Worth equal praise is the rivalry between David McCallum, Leonard Whiting and the always-dependable James Mason as the brilliantly twisted Dr. Polidori (affectionately known now and forever as "Polly-dolly.")

And what review would be complete without mentioning Jane Seymour as Prima. I won't spoil the shock and surprise involved with her character and Sarrazin's, but needless to say that was ONE scene that made quite an impression on my young mind, (and for those who remember, you know EXACTLY which part I'm referring to!) It was quite an introduction to a lovely young ingenue, who would become even more memorable to American audiences less than a year later with her big screen debut, as Bond girl Solitaire in Roger Moore's initial 007 outing, LIVE AND LET DIE.

It may not exist in its original form, as previous reviewers have pointed out, but one can only hope for a newly restored and uncut DVD version of this classic TV gem. In an age of bloated, overproduced blockbusters like TITANIC and PEARL HARBOR, the 240-minute version of this outstanding drama would be more than worth your time. Now here's hoping we'll get the opportunity to see it again, as it was intended.

Frankenstein: The True Story (Jack Smight, 1973; TV) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 10 November 2006]

I had always wanted to watch this after reading about it in Alan Frank's book "Horror Films", but missed out on it on Italian TV as a kid. When it was announced for DVD release, I pre-ordered it (despite being a bare-bones affair) but, after reading the first negative review - via DVD Talk, as there was mention of poor video quality and even edited footage - I almost cancelled it outright! However, having watched it myself, I found no complaints with the former and, being a first viewing, I had no opinion about the latter - to be honest, Frank's description of The Creature ripping out Prima's head from her body had fired up my imagination all these many years, and found the scene as is in the film something of a let-down, but I couldn't verily say if it was trimmed or not; likewise, I felt that the opening sequence (the drowning of Frankenstein's younger brother) was too abrupt, i.e. without having taken the time to create a genuine rapport between the two (which would have made Victor's subsequent obsession with bringing the dead back to life that much more purposeful!)...but, again, I don't know if it has always been this way or if it originally ran longer!!

The prologue was a mistake, in my opinion, as it feels awkward - like a Theatrical Trailer attached to the beginning of a movie, complete with spoilers galore! Obviously, I've watched countless adaptations of the Mary Shelley classic along the years - and it's always interesting to see the way in which the original text is 're-invented' by the various writers and film-makers; this epic, star-studded production is certainly among the most intelligent, literate renditions (co-scripted by Christopher Isherwood) although, to be honest, I found it most compelling during the first hour or so; maybe that's because I was used to seeing a hulking, misunderstood creature rather than the dapper and relatively inconspicuous one depicted here! Besides, David MacCallum's contribution is so strong (I had seen him in a few films and TV shows, but nothing as impressive as this!) during these initial stages that when his character is killed off, immediately prior to the first creation scene, it never fully recovers!!

Still, James Mason's Dr. Polidori makes for a great villain in the Praetorius tradition (though nothing so campy as Ernest Thesiger); in fact, even if the character is somewhat overwritten (coming off as a power-mad evil genius more akin to Fu Manchu than anything else, flanked by a couple of Asian henchmen no less!), Mason's playing is generally understated throughout - yet effortlessly dominating every scene he's in. Leonard Whiting isn't bad as Frankenstein, simply too youthful for the role - displaying none of the intensity of Colin Clive or the fastidiousness of Peter Cushing. Michael Sarrazin, as I said before, makes for a rather unalarming creature - though his subsequent physical and mental deterioration provides some undeniably effective moments (such as in the afore-mentioned scene with Prima, the unsuccessful attempt by Polidori and Frankenstein to destroy him, and the doomed sea voyage at the finale); that said, it appears that the conception itself of The Creature has problems: at first, MacCallum's Henry Clerval complains that he has been saddled with a peasant's brain for his creation and, yet when Frankenstein eventually substitutes it with that of Clerval himself, Sarrazin still emerges an illiterate - until the very end when he unaccountably starts reasoning the way Clerval would have and is even able to guide the ship to the Arctic (it somehow doesn't feel right that Prima receives schooling whereas The Creature does not, or rather learns precious little from his various misadventures, such as the encounter with the blind hermit or his sojourn with Polidori - when both these incidents, as depicted in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [1935], had proved crucial to The Creature's formation of character)!

One of the most satisfying aspects to the film is the unusually strong participation of the female leads, both of whom add effortless grace to the proceedings but also deliver fine performances: Nicola Pagett is certainly the most significant Elizabeth I have seen, while Jane Seymour appears in a 'dual' role as the blind hermit's grand-daughter and the mischievous, sexy Prima (The Creature's female counterpart whom Dr. Polidori proposes to integrate into affluent London society, for his own sinister ends, with disastrous consequences). The supporting cast is chosen with an eye to adding further distinction to the production if little else, as none of the various thespians are particularly taxed by the brief roles they have been offered!

The film was made by Universal, interestingly enough, but shooting took place in London (to where the story itself is, bafflingly, re-set for the most part!). Even if director Smight didn't usually dabble in the horror genre, he managed the task competently enough - though the end result is essentially uninspired, and too genteel in the long run; nevertheless, he's aided immeasurably in the visual stakes by the sterling contribution of cinematographer Arthur Ibbetson and production designer Wilfred Shingleton.

Fabulous re-telling of the original story

[Elsbed · 10/10 · 9 January 1999]

Although this film may digress in many ways from the book, it is nonetheless superb. A fine cast, including Leonard Whiting, Nicola Padgett and guest appearances from many others, rounds out the experience. One empathizes with the monster, who begins his new life as a beautiful, sensitive creature only to physically and aesthetically deteriorate as time goes on. An interesting twist is the subplot of Prima, the second creature, created by Dr. Polidori (Victor's nemesis) with the assistance of Victor...I first saw this movie on television when I was about 9 or 10, I seem to remember it being shown in two parts, the second part beginning with Polidori's attempt to bring Prima into elite society, followed with the downfall of Victor, the monster and Polidori. Really one of my favorite re-tellings of the Frankenstein story.

It's amazing what you could get away with when there were only three networks...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 27 October 2018]

... as this is very definitely NOT Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

It's a very well done movie, but it is nowhere near Shelley's novel. The ideas behind Shelley's Frankenstein is Victor Frankenstein trying to make a man without reckoning on the power of the soul and on Victor's irresponsibility towards his creature once he/it comes out well proportioned as he intended, but has milky eyes and his veins showing through his skin, thus looking definitely not human and horrifying to the human eye. Left to his own designs the creature truly becomes a monster over time from rejection by human beings and his creator.

This film is not about the power of the soul at all. Instead, the two lessons seem to be 1. If you are collaborating with somebody who dies suddenly while writing in his scientific notebook mid sentence, make VERY SURE you just don't finish his sentences for him and take bold steps because of those assumptions. 2. Forget that soul business. The important thing is to be a handsome devil of a creation! (Michael Sarrazin).

The really weird parts about this film - What IS James Mason doing in this production as Dr. Poldari? He seems to be here as a kind of equivalent to Eric Thesiger's more accomplished mad scientist in "Bride of Frankenstein". And he works with acid and he is always wearing this mysterious glove. Before Michael Jackson made that fashionable. Hmmm.

Michael Sarrazin was not just a pretty face - here he is very poignant as the creature. Jane Seymour at 22 shows just what a beautiful woman she was in her youth - perfection. Well, done with a star studded cast of old Hollywood, especially in the supporting roles, I'd say it's worth seeking out especially if you can find the original version that was shown over two nights in two hour segments each, but that was with commercials. It really was a special presentation in spite of the lack of truth in advertising.

So it's been like.....35 years...

[nlights · 9/10 · 10 March 2008]

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.

Something different

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 20 May 2021]

FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973), is a two-part TV miniseries (similar to SALEM'S LOT) whose title suggests a riposte to the wealth of looser Frankenstein adaptations that were proliferating at the time, particularly European efforts like LADY FRANKENSTEIN. Even so, this adapts and changes the material as much as any other version, for example introducing and fictionalising Dr. Polidori, a real-life acquaintance of Mary Shelley, who James Mason plays as an important character in the story. Those of us au fait with the Hammer films will find much to enjoy here too with an adaptation which is less salacious, more serious, more prim and proper in many respects, more like a period drama than a full-blooded horror feature. The production values are high and the visuals are very well handled, particularly the impressive locations.

The horror is implied rather than explicit here, although there are some choice moments and one horrific beheading which is perhaps all the more harrowing when we don't physically see the act. Leonard Whiting's rather shallow Victor is a weak point - he's young and good-looking, but lacks the gravitas of a Cushing or Clive - but others like the aforementioned Mason alongside David McCallum and Jane Seymour are decent and Michael Sarrazin's Creature is handled in a welcome non-exploitative way. At three hours in length it's an undeniable slow-mover, but I enjoyed this all the way through, particularly a gatecrashing set-piece that eclipses the one in THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The writers also go out of their way to avoid the old lightning/electrical tropes, coming up with solar power and flammable liquid (!) as novel methods of creating life. This isn't as entertaining as the better films in the Hammer Frankenstein cycle but it holds its own well enough and I rather liked it.

The Gone With The Wind Of Frankenstein Movies

[oldblackandwhite · 9/10 · 13 January 2017]

I must add my own two-cents worth to those others who regard Frankenstein: The True Story as the most satisfying film version of of Mary Shelly's 1818 classic. Though it is not a literal translation of the story, it captures the philosophical nature, melancholy mood and epic scope of Mrs. Shelly's novel better than any other celluloid rendition. While keeping the bare bones (no pun intended) of the novel's plot, it dances all around the original story, pulling off plot elements here and there, then sticking them back on elsewhere. For instance, Henri, in the original merely Victor Frankenstein's concerned best friend, is transformed into a mad doctor who gives Victor the monster-making knowledge. In the book Elizabeth was the ward of Victor's father, but Vic is the ward of Liz's dad in True Story. The Dr. Polidori character, played by James Mason oozing evil from every pore, was a brilliant touch, but no such character appears in the novel. Yet, there was a real-life Polidori in Mary Shelly's orbit. He was Shelly friend Lord Byron's personal physician, confidant, and dope supplier. A brilliant young man, who had already published several medical books, he tragically took his own life at age 21 -- according to some, because of his unrequited love for Mary Shelly!

True Story owes little to previous movie versions, neither the mossy old 1930's and 'forties Universal Frankenstein series or Hammer's 1950's/'60's revivals, but is a completely fresh approach. The brilliant script by Isherwood and Bachardy is almost as literary as Mrs. Shelly novel, yet even more exciting and stimulating. True Story is a splendid production, probably one of the most handsomely turned out made-for-TV numbers of all time. Period (1797 and following) sets and costumes are exquisite. The cinematography is beautiful, belying its TV origins every step of the way. Unlike most TV movies of the time and practically all current theatrical movies, it disdains the shot-a-second montage method in favor of the mise-en-scene approach -- every scene starts with a precisely composed long shot, which gradually pans in to close-up. This classic style of cinematography complements the beautiful sets, enhances the melancholy mood, and displays the humanity of the characters better than montage. Here it is used brilliantly by director of photography Arthur Ibbetson and director Jack Smight.

Frankenstein: The True Story is expertly acted by Mason, Leonard Whiting (Victor), Nicole Padget (Elizabeth), Michael Sarrizan (Creature), Jane Seymour (female creature) and the rest of a fine cast. It is dramatically engaging, thoroughly engrossing for its entire three hours, intellectually stimulating, and gorgeously filmed. A delight from beginning to end. Even Old Hollywood would have been proud to have turned out such a complete motion picture.

P.S. -- Those who are interested in learning more about that early 19th century femme fa-tale and the origin of her famous monster story would do well to read Miranda Seymour's superbly researched, highly readable biography of Mary Shelly (Grove Press, NY, 2000).

Effective Interpretation - Bravo Victor

[crooow-2 · 7/10 · 23 November 2006]

I first saw this as a two-part miniseries on TV in the early seventies. Several scenes left a strong impression on me (see below). When the DVD version recently became available, I bought it on the first available day. Of course, it did not live up to my childhood memories but I was not disappointed. However, my wife found it boring (too slow) and a friend thought it was stupid (with bad production moments and some silly dialogue). I agree that it is slow and that there are many portions that could have been edited down. But I still find it very worthwhile particularly for the storyline interpretations and the character issues raised.

Being familiar with the novel, I realize that this version is not "true" to the original story's plot. But I believe it is much truer to the spirit of the novel than most other productions. The creature is sympathetic while still doing horrific things. Frankenstein's behavior is difficult to understand: obsessive yet easily frustrated.

The bad: the added prolog, the first 5 minutes (rushed - would have been better as backstory in voice-over), bad production value (the carriage scene), silly plot devices (the hypnosis, Clerval's sudden attacks, the housekeeper's death by fright, the Polidori plan for Prima, Victor's explanation for who the creature is), the stock footage of the Arctic (not even the same film resolution).

The good: the acting, the creature's makeup, the ending, the script in general ("Bravo, Victor").

My favorite scenes: the severed arm banging on the cabinet during the creation, the creature's heartbreaking realization that he is no longer beautiful, Victor and the creature on the white cliffs, the creature and the blind hermit, Prima playing the piano and playing with the white cat, the horrific ballroom scene, the final Polidori scene (despite the weak special effects), the frozen deck, and the final conciliation between Frankenstein and the creature).

The interesting: why is Prima evil while the Creature starts out good? Is it Polidori's training? Can either of them be considered good or evil or are they amoral? Why does Victor treat the creature poorly? Frustration over his own failure? Why is the creature never given a name?

In summary, not great but a welcome mental break from the high-action low-thought films of today.

Psycho-Sexual, Homo-Erotic, And Unexpectedly Subversive For It's Era

[gftbiloxi · 8/10 · 11 June 2007]

Every film version of FRANKENSTEIN has taken tremendous liberties with Mary Shelly's celebrated 1818 novel, and although it retains the core idea of the book this one is no exception. Produced for television by Universal Studios in 1973, the film contains a host of characters and ideas that draw more from previous film versions than from the original novel. More interestingly, however, it introduces a number of distinctly original concepts as well.

Simply stated, the film has a highly disconcerting and surprisingly overt homo-erotic edge. Instead of the inevitable "mad doctor" typical of films, Victor Frankestein is a remarkably handsome young man in the form of actor Leonard Whiting, a performer best known as Romeo in the famous 1968 ROMEO AND JULIET. He is seduced into the experiment by the equally handsome but distinctly odd Henry Clerval (David McCallum)--and not only do the two actors play the relationship in a disquietingly touchy-feely way, Clerval takes exception to Victor's fiancée Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) and she returns the favor, demanding that Victor choose between them.

Lest any one miss the implications, the creature is played by none other than Michael Sarrazin, and while many men may be described as handsome, Sarrazin is among the few who can be justly described as beautiful. He arises from the laboratory table barely decent in a few strategically placed bandages, and when his facial covering is pulled aside by the eager Dr. Frankenstein we are treated to a lingering image of glossy black hair, pale complexion, remarkably liquid eyes, and lips that would make Vogue model weep with envy. Dr. Frankenstein takes him to his own apartment, where he educates this child-like innocent and very generously allows the creature to sleep in his own bed.

But, as in all FRANKENSTEIN movies, the experiment goes awry, and when it does the same disconcerting homo-erotic overtones take yet another turn. Due to some unknown error in the creation process, the creature begins to deteriorate in appearance--and instead of continuing to treat him kindly, Frankenstein keeps the creature locked up, becomes verbally abusive to him, and no longer allows the creature to sleep in his bed, relegating him to a cramped mattress on the floor. At the same time, Frankenstein is approached by the mysterious Dr. Polidori (the legendary James Mason), an oily scientist with a flair for hypnosis who claims to know what went wrong.

Polidori insists that they abandon the creature and create a new one: a woman, and when this new creation emerges from an entirely different process she too is remarkably beautiful; indeed, she is none other than Jane Seymour. But whereas the original creature was a gentle creature who only learned violence from Frankenstein's hateful rejection, this new entity is strangely icy, almost snake-like from the very beginning--and the male creature, now both vicious and wildly jealous, will exact a horrific toll upon all concerned.

It is worth pointing out that the script for this version of FRANKENSTEIN was co-authored by Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986), one of the few openly gay writers of his era. Sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular forms a theme in many of Isherwood's works, so it would seem reasonable to assume that he was responsible for the homo-erotic elements of the film. Jack Smight's direction does not offer anything nearly so interesting as the script, but it is workman-like, and while the production values tend to be a shade too baroque for their own good one never lacks for something to look at on the screen.

The cast is also quite good. At the time, the film was looked upon as a "television event," and it drew a host of noted actors, including John Gielgud and Agnes Moorehead. No one would accuse Leonard Whiting of being a great screen talent, but he acquits himself very well; so too does David McCallum, Nicola Pagett, and the always memorable James Mason. But the real knock-out performances here are by Sarrazin and Seymour, who truly blow the lid off our ideas of what a FRANKENSTEIN movie should be--and when they square off the result is unsettling in a truly unexpected way. In terms of the DVD itself, the film quality is considerably better than the rare late-night showings I've occasionally seen on television, but I would not describe it as pristine, and I found I frequently had to bump up the volume on the soundtrack.

If you are looking for something with which to scare yourself silly, you might want to give this version FRANKENSTEIN a miss; although it has a few visceral moments, the jolts involved are largely psycho-sexual. But if you are open to the sexually subversive, which is particularly unexpected in a made-for-television film from 1973, you couldn't make a better choice. Recommended.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

A different kind of creature

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 21 April 2018]

The indelible image of Frankenstein's monster was created by Boris Karloff in the classic Frankenstein film from Universal in the early talkie days. That square head, those bolts protruding from the neck and that inarticulate rage set the standard for the creature in dozens of films thereafter.

In Frankenstein: The True Story we get a different slant on the creation. Dr. Victor Frankenstein is taken on as a protege by Dr. David McCallum who is experimenting with the origin of life and reviving the dead. McCallum is killed but Whiting takes the experiment over and with some of the same bizarre electronics via a lightning storm brings his creature to life and he looks a whole lot like Michael Sarrazin.

Sarrazin is certainly a kind of Frankenstein monster that we hadn't seen before. But he's a failed experiment and he begins to deteriorate as dead bodies are prone to do.

The film follows the basic plot of both the original Frankenstein and the Bride Of Frankenstein with Jane Seymour a girl killed in an accident brought back to life by another scientist James Mason who has the best role in the piece. He's a mad scientist, but he's one with real ambitions for Seymour. Let's say it ain't love a first sight for Sarrazin and Seymour. You have to see what happens to Seymour at a society ball.

Both acting knights Ralph Richardson as the blind fiddler and John Gielgud as a constable are in this as well. This is also Michael Wilding's farewell film as the father of Nicola Paggett who is Whiting's fiance.

The kind of talent in the cast of this film makes it a winner. This one is different and if you are a fan of James Mason you should not miss this.

Oh NO It's Not!

[tonstant viewer · 4/10 · 12 April 2008]

"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.

Star-studded, literate adaptation

[vitoruss · 14 September 2003]

It's a shame that this spectacular TV movie (which originally ran in two 2-hour parts) is only available in a much abbreviated 2 hour version (actually this is the version released in theatres in the UK and abroad, while the full version played on US TV) from the cheapie distributor Goodtimes. Hopefully, the full version will one day make it onto DVD (the way it took quite a while for the original SALEMS LOT two-part TV movie to get released on tape and dvd, when it also was only available as a 2-hour abridgement). Written by Christopher Isherwood, this literate, beautifully filmed retelling of the Mary Shelley classic is a must see.

A much truer portrayal of the novel, but still with some Hollywood inventions

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 19 August 2022]

Anyone expecting to see a hideous creature as that played by Boris Karloff in the 1931 cult classic horror film, "Frankenstein," may be in for a letdown. The monster here is a gentle soul, played superbly by Michael Sarrazin. But who hasn't seen the scary, 1931 horror version of Mary Shelley's 1818 sci-fi novel, "Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus?" That will probably remain better know as the great monster movie.

But this film, "Frankenstein: The True Story," is based much more on the real story of Shelley's novel. Thus, the gentle monster, the good-hearted creature that saves and helps people rather than killing them. But, as the story has it, deaths are attributed to him. The true story varies a great deal from what Hollywood turned it into, for the sake of a horror movie. The novel clearly was science fiction, about men making a new human being out of parts of different bodies.

The film does a good job portraying much of the story, but still it veers off from the novel, especially the ending. Indeed, anyone who hasn't read Shelley's book would find it interesting, because the story and fate of Dr. Frankenstein and his creature do not have an ending. While this film doesn't have an Igor character of some of the early Hollywood films, it does have another character that's not in the book - Polidori. And that character adds another twist to the original story, in the lust of a man to create a new, super race. Ah, well. Give me the good old stories as the authors wrote them, and kudos to moviemakers when they try to portray the real stories without revising them beyond their authors' plots.

For their acting, James Mason is very good as Dr. John Polidori. Leonard Whiting is very good as Dr. Victor Frankenstein, and Michael Sarrazin is superb as The Creature. It should be noted that his character is a creature, not called a monster. I think David McCallum's part as Henry Clerval is played rather strangely. The film has a luscious sampling of prominent actors of the day in small parts - a little more than cameos. It was a nice touch, probably as a nod to the author and to boost audience attraction to this much more accurate rendering of Shelley's classic story.

Ralph Richardson, Margaret Leighton, John Gielgud, Agnes Moorehead, and Michael Wilding add a little class to the upper class in the film. And, of course, Jane Seymour is wonderful as the lovely Agatha who first loses her life because of the creature, and then loses her head over him. That scene, which spares the audience of actual blood and gore is outstanding. It just shows the horrified faces of the people attending the ball. Agatha is in the novel, but she didn't get remade into a second creature as in this film.

Here are a couple favorite lines from the film.

John Polidori, "Violence may be unavoidable, but clumsiness is inexcusable."

Polidori, "Our dear girl must get married as soon as is decently possible. An unmarried woman has no freedom of action."

An excellent version of Frankenstein

[ammmmc · 8/10 · 4 June 1999]

I rented this movie the other night. I was impressed by how many well known actors were in it. The acting was very good. Leonard Whiting was very convincing and seemed to really share a bond with his monster. The monster didn't seem to be all that evil until people started being mean to it. I think the movie tried to show us that beauty is only skin deep. Jane Seymour was excellent. I recommend this movie highly, it is very well done.

Better Looking Than it First Appears

[Cineanalyst · 7/10 · 25 August 2018]

The reverse of its Frankenstein monster, who begins beautiful, but becomes ugly after "the process reverses itself," this two-part television movie, "Frankenstein: The True Story," begins rather clumsily and suffers from the TV standards of its age, but grows more interesting and becomes better by the end. This may also be true for anyone who has only seen the two-hour abridged version; there's better in store for you, if you seek out the three-some-hour original cut (which isn't to say that this one couldn't benefit from more cutting, as it does drag in its less-interesting parts). Although it doesn't fully lock in particularly well on any one theme or reworking of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," a few intriguing concepts, re-imaginings and borrowings from other horror films bounce around throughout, that the creature that is the movie ultimately has some life to it.

It begins like a bad recap to a prior TV episode, as well as announcing its first of many departures from the book, with Victor Frankenstein narrating the apparently-past scene of the death of his younger brother, William. A bewildering close-up of an expressionless Elizabeth is intercut within this montage, too (the first of many distasteful alterations made here to this character). After this, we follow Victor, as he is made dull and the pupil to the more compelling Henry Clerval, who is completely redone from Shelley's version of him, into one of the movie's two doctors to precede and surpass Victor in the science of reanimating cadavers. The other doctor is John Polidori, the name of the author of "The Vampyre" and one of the guests at Lord Byron's villa near Lake Geneva where Mary conceived the Frankenstein story, but in this movie, he's a deformed practitioner of hypnosis and a cross between Dr. Pretorius, of "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), and Dr. Fu Manchu.

Meanwhile, Frankenstein's creature is an Adonis, at first, but transforms into a dark and slightly-Neanderthal-looking version of Mr. Hyde, but he remains clearly human in appearance, which makes the adverse reactions of the blind man's fellow cabin dwellers to his hideousness rather unbelievable. Later, he suffers burns, becoming more grotesque, which leads to, perhaps, the movie's best and most gruesome scene in a ballroom--a scene that may even benefit from focusing mostly on the reactions of the other characters instead of on the act. Otherwise, the monster follows in the footsteps of Boris Karloff by being an inarticulate childlike figure who loves music, as opposed to Shelley's philosophical creation. The monster's "bride," however, is a more perfect specimen (even more so than in the 1935 film) and, in keeping with the story's overall misogyny, an insensitive and catty schemer, who draws the ire of Victor's wife, Elizabeth.

As aforementioned, Elizabeth is a distasteful character this outing, Bible thumping and becoming hysterical at the sight of anything reanimated, including a ridiculous scene involving a butterfly brought back to life. A sexist treatment of Shelley's story isn't necessarily an inappropriate tract, though. The novel, after all, concerns a mother-less creation and largely relegates its female characters to the sidelines. This adaptation takes that further, including by removing Victor's mother all together and portraying its women as either or a combination of being cruel or vapid. Written by a homosexual couple, the movie also follows somewhat in the spirit of "Bride of Frankenstein" with hints of gay romantic affections between the men, of Victor's relationship with the other two doctors and, especially, with his Adonis. These relationships are far more tender than those between Victor and Elizabeth and the female creature.

Another intriguing aspect of this one is the use of mirrors, especially how they support the dopplegänger theme. I haven't seen another Frankenstein adaptation (and I've seen near 50 by now) explore this angle so thoroughly since the earliest Frankenstein film, a short by the Edison Company in 1910. Scenes with mirrors become prominent after Frankenstein's creature is born. Along with the two actors similar good looks, including their anachronistic 1970s shaggy hairstyles, the use of mirrors reflect that the creature is Victor's double--his mirror image. That both creatures mirror the actions of their same-gendered counterparts also reflects this. When the monster turns ugly, Victor appropriately takes his frustrations out on mirrors by smashing them. There are also a few shots where otherwise out-of-frame characters are seen via their reflections, and there's a blunt metaphor where Clerval is figuratively getting a big head as he holds a mirror that literally distorts his head's reflection to gigantic proportions.

More doubling upon that, we get two original creation scenes here, too. Appearing on the boob tube during the 1973 Oil Embargo, the first employs the alternative energy of solar power and, fittingly, uses a series of mirrors to reflect the sun. The second is a kind of elaboration on the Hammer Frankenstein films, with a chemical bath, but involving lava-lamp-like, multi-color bubble animations and pyrotechnics. The use of acid is also taken from Hammer. There's also the usual playing God parable, which isn't handled particularly well here and includes quite a few rather unnecessary anti-clerical remarks by Victor and others. Most of the camerawork is of the typical, straight-on variety of old, videotaped TV, including minimal editing and forcing the actors to do most of the work while the musical score is ever present to cue the appropriate reaction from viewers. Fortunately, this project managed to enlist some good actors, including big names like James Mason. The use of mirrors and the original creation scenes enliven the production values some. And the script reworks Shelley's story in enough novel ways to, ultimately, make for some engrossing television.

Watch the 'all parts intact' version.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 10 July 2021]

Originally broadcast on US TV in two 90 minute parts, Frankenstein: The True Story was - rather ironically - chopped up and stitched back together to be shown cinematically overseas as a two hour movie. I strongly suggest seeking out the uncut original, which, thanks to the excellent all-star cast and superb production values, still has the look and feel of a major theatrical release rather than the TV mini-series that it actually is. Even though the plot takes more than a few liberties with Mary Shelley's novel, this is still a very worthwhile version of her oft-told tale, one that captures the essence of the source material, dispenses one or two shocks along the way, and looks sumptuous throughout.

Leonard Whiting plays Dr. Victor Frankenstein, who, spurred on by the untimely death of his younger brother, tries to find a way to bring the dead back to life, aided in his quest by the like-minded Dr. Clerval (David McCallum), who has developed a special serum and revolutionary solar power source for just this purpose, and who unwittingly provides the brain for their creation by suddenly dropping dead. The experiment seemingly a success, Victor sets about introducing his surprisingly handsome creature' (Michael Sarrazin) to high-class London society, unaware that a reversal in the reanimation process is gradually causing physical abnormalities. Horrified at his increasingly ugly countenance, the creature becomes suicidal, but, already being dead, finds killing himself harder than he thinks.

Meanwhile, Clerval's previous scientific associate, Dr. John Polidori (the amazing James Mason), arrives on the scene hoping to join forces with Frankenstein to perfect the process. When the first creature accidentally kills the beautiful daughter of a blind man, he supplies Polidori and Frankenstein with the final components for a second creation: a beautiful woman that they name Prima (played by drop-dead gorgeous Jane Seymour). Her introduction to the social elite causes problems between Victor and his pregnant wife Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett), and with the creature, who, now horribly disfigured, is jealous of the attention that Prima is receiving.

Things proceed to go downhill for Victor Frankenstein - as they always seem to do for those who dabble in such ungodly matters - leading to a tragic finale on a ship bound for America, but redirected to the North Pole by the creature.

The incredible cast - which also includes the likes of Agnes Moorehead, Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Peter Sallis, and Tom Baker in cameo roles - rarely put a foot wrong, with Sarrazin making for an especially brilliant sympathetic monster, while Seymour's Prima is quite the opposite, a beautiful but soul-less creation, every bit as wicked as her mentor Polidori. Director Jack Smight proves a far more capable director than his primarily TV-based resumé suggests, largely handling the material with restraint, thus making the occasional grisly moment all the more effective: a reanimated severed arm that just won't stay put is quite unnerving, but it is the creature settling the score with Prima in front of a horrified crowd of posh onlookers that is the shocking showstopper. Visually, the film is impressive throughout, with a special mention for the colourful second experiment, Prima brought to life in a vat of swirling rainbow coloured liquids and bubbles - worthy of the great Terence Fisher himself.

8/10. The three hour plus runtime and gradual pace might occasionally have you looking at the clock to see how much time is left, but don't let that put you off, for there is so much here to enjoy.

Not for classic literature plebeians

[eddax · 6/10 · 16 February 2010]

Omg zzz. I bought this DVD partly because of its high rating on IMDb and partly because I'm an Agnes Moorehead fan but wow, it was mostly boring and Moorehead only had a tiny part.

I have to qualify that it was probably more boring to me than others because of my impatience with fine literature, even if it's a movie adaptation of it. By all accounts, this movie is a faithful reproduction of Mary Shelley's novel, but like with faithful adaptations of Shakespeare's plays for example, it just made me want to sleep.

Otherwise, it was a pretty good production. The sets looked great, and the movie had a pretty famous cast. I was most taken with Jane Seymour's Prima - gorgeous but with an edge, like something evil lurks beneath the surface - quite a perfect Bride of Frankenstein.

Shown complete on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater only in 1978

[kevinolzak · 9/10 · 30 July 2021]

The extravagant NBC-TV movie "Frankenstein: The True Story" (broadcast Nov. 28 and 30, 1973) was introduced by top billed James Mason at the gravesite of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, the script by Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy often deviating from its 1818 source although true to its spirit, perhaps wisely keeping the Monster (here called The Creature) a mostly silent but ever present menace. Director Jack Smight began shooting at Pinewood Studios on March 15, a star studded cast of thespians and actually few locations, never wavering from its focus on characterization, and despite its 3 hour running time is consistently absorbing. Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) is forced to postpone his impending marriage to Elizabeth Fanshawe (Nicola Pagett) after the accidental drowning of his beloved brother William, admitting to her in his grief that he'd be a willing pupil of Satan if it meant William were alive again. Returning to the university where he graduated as a full fledged doctor, he meets the brilliant Henry Clerval (David McCallum), a reclusive colleague of Dr. John Polidori (James Mason) who struck out on his own to achieve renown in restoring life to the dead. Using solar power for the source of life, Henry suffers from a weak heart and calls upon Victor to supply the muscle to build up the laboratory until the experiment is ready to commence, but dies before completing his final entry about how 'the process is reversing itself' in regard to the living arm he keeps in a glass container. As The Creature (Michael Sarrazin) takes its first breath (Henry's brain inside its skull) and comes face to face with its astonished creator, we are just as surprised to see his angelic looking features for the first time, Victor accepting the challenge of commencing its education and speech. Once he feels the time is right, Frankenstein even takes it to the opera, where Henry's knowledge of French emerges from The Creature's mouth. It's not long before Clerval's prediction comes true and the once handsome Creature begins to deteriorate, forcing Frankenstein to smash all the mirrors in the tiny apartment. The Creature is bewildered by Victor's sudden rejection of him, but once he sees the evidence reflected back at him he tries in vain to stab himself before jumping off a cliff to his apparent demise (this is how Part 1 concludes). The story picks up with The Creature meeting blind man Mr. Lacey (Ralph Richardson), not frightened by his appearance and willing to entertain his new friend with music, until his curious granddaughter Agatha and her lover intrude on the two, both youngsters killed and Lacey left in shock. The Creature carries the girl's lifeless corpse back to the lab where he was born and meets Dr. Polidori, who learns that it speaks with Henry Clerval's voice (Henry used to taunt him as 'Polly Dolly'), and has patiently waited for this opportunity to use Frankenstein's creation to persuade Victor to perform him a surgical service. Frankenstein has no choice but to accede to Polidori's request, transplanting the head of The Creature's beloved Agatha onto a female body to be brought to life using various chemicals rather than Clerval's flawed acceptance of solar energy. Polidori names the newborn woman Prima (Jane Seymour) and places her in the home of Elizabeth's parents, where he intends to make her a pillar of society under his influence and knowledge of hypnotism. Prima is quite different from Agatha, an amoral child both sadist and seductress, taking advantage of being born into privilege to mock the now pregnant Elizabeth at every turn. Polidori shows Victor how he plans to use an acid bath to finally dispose of The Creature, but just as success is nearly achieved Frankenstein can't bear to see his creation destroyed, but Polidori still has his henchmen blow up the lab to his exultant cry: "burn, Henry Clerval!" Prima dances up a storm at her inaugural ball as Polidori shares in her glory, only for the badly scarred Creature to burst in unannounced, take in her incomparable beauty, remove the necklace hiding her surgical scar, and carefully pull off her head before the horrified onlookers. Elizabeth manages to appease the authorities to enable both her and Victor to board a ship headed for a new life in America, unaware of two most unwelcome passengers, Polidori (hoping to continue his experiments in Philadelphia) and The Creature, still following its creator to an uncertain destiny. With the compass locked to take the vessel straight to the North Pole, only Frankenstein and The Creature will be left alive for a final confrontation in the frozen wasteland, the first adaptation to conclude the same way as Shelley's novel. This Victor is not the total milksop of the novel, yet still easily led by those with greater scientific knowledge, while it's a fascinating contrast between man made monsters, Jane Seymour's cold and calculating Prima maintaining merely the facade of beauty (the novel's bride is never brought to life), Michael Sarrazin's Creature degenerating in appearance yet recognizably human, killing only in self defense without knowing its own strength. Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater aired the entire 3 hours in the waning days of its double feature format (Nov. 1978), two months before being reduced to a single broadcast following SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.

Those who try to become God end up as dust. No longer "beautiful".

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 5 August 2022]

A very different look at the Mary Shelley tale, with a very different Dr. Victor von Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) and quite a different monster (Michael Sarrazin) than you've ever seen. Dr Frankenstein gives up his belief in God when his younger brother is killed, and finds a mentor in creepy scientist David Hemmings who becomes part of his experiment when he dies suddenly. The body parts of victims of a boating accident contribute to the creation of Adam, initially a very handsome and seemingly gentle creature whose sudden slow transformation into a horrendous monster whose distress over loosing his looks results in tragedy for so many people.

A brilliant three hour TV adaption of the often filmed novel is nowhere close to the James Whale classic with Karloff, and while as lavish looking as the Hammer films isn't as gory or as much of a horror film. It could be said that this TV version is a science fiction tragedy with a cast of such greats as James Mason, Agnes Moorehead, John Gielgud and Margaret Leighton. It's obvious that Moorehead is playing a variation of Una O'Connor's frightened cockney hag, although her character is actually quite sweet. Leighton is a British theater star who is entranced by Sarrazin in their initial scene together. I do indeed highly recommend this as a unique "untold" story, very well done, with hints that Sarrazin's creature was actually in love with Wilding.

Best Frankenstein Movie - Bar None!

[jbtolla · 10/10 · 28 December 2002]

This is my favorite version of the Frankenstein stories and I have seen them all. I remember sitting up late to watch this movie in the 1970's. I have the very edited version on VHS. I would love to see the entire film released on DVD. The all star cast and period costumes were excellent!

The Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 8 October 2006]

In the prologue, the script has James Mason, the actor, come out and show us Mary Shelley's grave and explain the origin of the story. Then the script more or less buries Shelley's original under a collapsing iceberg of additional myth, fantasy, and whimsical repetition.

This TV miniseries comes in two parts. Part One isn't bad. Leonard Whiting is Victor Frankenstein. David MacCallum is his mentor in building the creature (Michael Sarazzin) using electrical energy and parts of cadavers.

Christopher Isherwood was behind the script and -- well, I'll tell you. If this isn't an allegory I don't know what is. Sarazzin, as the creature, climbs from his gurney wearing only a few strips of bandages, his jewels prominent, his face and hair carefully groomed. "Beautiful!" gasps Frankenstein. And with a sweet and beckoning smile the creature repeats, "Beautiful." The two handsome young men get along quite well together, though to be sure one of them is rather dead. Frankenstein's fiancée, Elizabeth, turns pretty much into the beard. Oh, sure, he's engaged to her but we know in which direction his affections lie.

But now our story turns a bit. The creature suffers the agonizing fate of every narcissist. He ages -- and quickly. And as he ages his features collapse and seem to rot, so that he shortly begins to look like Dorian Gray's portrait. (Another allegory there, which we needn't go into.) The creature, discovering that he's turned ugly and feeling bitter, begins to brood, and Frankenstein locks him up and begins to pursue his plans with Elizabeth again. The creature gets out and visits Frankenstein and Elizabeth at a fancy ball. He turns out to be one of those rowdy guests you find at every party -- smashing mirrors, windows, and furniture, and killing a few guests.

Somewhere around here, Part One ended and Part Two began. Part Two was a mistake. The creature takes a back seat most of the time. Instead, enter Dr. Polidori (James Mason), no relation to the Polidori who shared that weekend with Shelley and the rest. Polidori informs Frankenstein that the BEST way to bring a fabricated body to life is by using chemicals, not electrical energy, and for a moment we expect them to begin arguing like two yentas over the back fence discussing a recipe.

At any rate, Polidori enlists Frankenstein's help in creating a female body -- this time using HIS methods. She turns out to be Jane Seymour, which is a considerable improvement over Michael Sarazzin if you ask me, even though we don't get to see her wearing three or four bandages.

There's a problem, however. If Frankenstein's monster was flawed in that it aged too quickly, Polidori's creature (whom Polidori names "Prima") turns out to be thoroughly cuckoo. She strangles a cat for no reason. Well, I guess there's ALWAYS a reason to strangle a cat, but some of her other behavior is just plain shocking. I forget most of the other things, but it doesn't matter. Seymour too interrupts a fancy ball, doing a charming, impromptu pas de seul.

Now Victor Frankenstein begins to look upon Prima with more than the usual admiration a scientist feels for an invention. Who wouldn't? Elizabeth, now Frankenstein's bride, begins to get jealous -- and so does the original CREATURE, who wrenches off Seymour's head. What a dirty trick.

They all wind up dead in the arctic. That includes Frankenstein's creature, although he's described as having an "iron body" impervious to cold and is shown to be immune to bullets too. But I guess he not only doesn't age well. He doesn't travel well either.

The acting's not bad and the production values are good for TV. There are many cameos -- Gielgud, Wilding, Moorehead, Richardson, and others -- but the parts aren't substantial.

It didn't really matter that the story didn't follow Mary Shelley's original very closely, although many of the issues it raised (science vs. theology) are still relevant. The main problem was that most of Part Two was unnecessary, almost redundant. In Part One Frankenstein invents a flawed male creature. In Part Two Polidori invents a flawed female creature. Almost everything between the end of Part One and the arctic climax could have been snipped out with little loss.

Not a badly done movie, though. It's not trashy and it's not insulting. It's just without much significance. Worth seeing once.

Mesmerizing!

[coloradokid719 · 22 June 2002]

I first saw this film on television at age 12 or 13, in black-and-white (we didn't have a color television at the time). I recall it being shown in two parts, but even in black and white and at a young age I could see it was a rather lavish production. The cast is excellent. I found the entire story fascinating and I was mesmerized by it. As with most television films of that era (prior to home video recording technology) I was afraid I'd never see it again. I was oh-so-pleasantly surprised when it was run on a premium cable network in 1997 while I was living in California! Watching it in color made it even more fascinating than before. It is certainly a departure from more "traditional" treatments of this story, which makes it even more of a true gem captured on film! The viewer receives a more graceful, romantic treatment of a fascinating story.