Mary Shelley's horror perennial has attracted numerous talents to it over the years: this one is no exception, but the end result is largely unsatisfying and oddly forgettable! Robert Powell and David Warner (as creator and creature respectively) complement each other quite well, especially in their thoughtful (as opposed to physical) final confrontation. The latter's burnt look (while not fitted with bolts in the sides of his neck a' la the classic monster make-up, he is still brought to life via electrical charges) seems to be derived from Christopher Lee's messy visage in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), while also looking forward to Robert De Niro's in MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1994). Carrie Fisher feels out-of-place here as Elizabeth, John Gielgud is wasted as the blind hermit, and Edward Judd turns up in yet another unrecognizable character role as a procurer of Frankenstein's specimens. The essence of the tale is there, to be sure (in spite of the low-key approach)
though, at a mere 73 minutes, it comes off as rushed – with the film's visuals also proving unappetizingly drab!
10 Reviews
Slighty Underrated-David Warner and Carrie Fisher Give Their Best
barrosjared15 May 2020
This British film from the 1980s is far from being the best Frankenstein adaptation. It's low-budget is obvious, the monster's character development is rushed, and the ending is anticlimatic. But the film's strengths come from the competent performances from the cast and the solid script.
To be fair, I saw this film on YouTube for free, so the quality might not be what it truly is. Although the makeup is pretty bad and nowhere near James Whale's level of talent, David Warner does a great job of playing the Frankenstein Monster. He conveys horror and pathos as the character should. Robert Powell is a solid Victor Frankenstein that conveys the madness and tragedy of the character, but nowhere near the level of Colin Clive or Peter Cushing. Carrie Fisher doesn't have as much screen-time as I originally thought despite being top billed, but she delivers a great performance as Elizabeth when she's onscreen. She's instantly unforgettable and absolutely beautiful; her smile alone melts your heart. Her natural British accent puts Keanu Reeves to shame. And her singing is off the charts. Elizabeth is supposed to be angelic and no one has pulled that off as well as Carrie in my opinion.
The filming locations are another highlight of this television movie. Looking at every single location makes me feel content. This makes me want to visit the United Kingdom. The outfits and hairstyles are spot on from the 19th century as well.
Is this film a major classic? No. But is it fun? Yes! It's also just over an hour and is free to watch on YouTube. It has a surprisingly moving plot and is better than half of the Frankenstein movies. Rip Carrie Fisher, you are surely missed.
To be fair, I saw this film on YouTube for free, so the quality might not be what it truly is. Although the makeup is pretty bad and nowhere near James Whale's level of talent, David Warner does a great job of playing the Frankenstein Monster. He conveys horror and pathos as the character should. Robert Powell is a solid Victor Frankenstein that conveys the madness and tragedy of the character, but nowhere near the level of Colin Clive or Peter Cushing. Carrie Fisher doesn't have as much screen-time as I originally thought despite being top billed, but she delivers a great performance as Elizabeth when she's onscreen. She's instantly unforgettable and absolutely beautiful; her smile alone melts your heart. Her natural British accent puts Keanu Reeves to shame. And her singing is off the charts. Elizabeth is supposed to be angelic and no one has pulled that off as well as Carrie in my opinion.
The filming locations are another highlight of this television movie. Looking at every single location makes me feel content. This makes me want to visit the United Kingdom. The outfits and hairstyles are spot on from the 19th century as well.
Is this film a major classic? No. But is it fun? Yes! It's also just over an hour and is free to watch on YouTube. It has a surprisingly moving plot and is better than half of the Frankenstein movies. Rip Carrie Fisher, you are surely missed.
Warner makes a good monster
bensonmum24 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Frankenstein (1984) is yet another of the seemingly endless versions of the Frankenstein story. This one was apparently made for British television. The director, James Ormerod, has put together a nice little movie given the obvious limitations to his budget.
I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.
The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.
The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.
While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.
I won't go into the basic story as most already know it by heart.
The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner. Although listed as the 'star', Fisher's role of Elizabeth has little screen time. She is, however, good when on screen. As for Powell, other than looking like a 1970s porn star, his portrayal of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is also good. But, the real star is David Warner as the monster. His portrayal of the monster is one of the better I've seen. In a very believable performance, Warner plays the monster as a very sympathetic creature. For example, I really felt the monster's pain when his only friend is killed. I would easily rate it as on of the top three performances of Frankenstein's monster I've seen. Of note in the supporting cast is John Gielgud as the blind hermit.
The make-up is also good given the budget. Instead of the scars and neck bolts we're all familiar with, this creature looks more like a burn victim. It's understandable given the high temperatures generated from the electricity that brought the monster to life.
While not the best Frankenstein I've ever seen, the movie held my attention throughout. At the start of the movie, I was ready to hate it, but ended up having a great time watching the story unfold. Warner's monster was a treat.
well acted adaptation
peacham11 October 1999
Robert Powell is convincing as Victor Frankenstein,bringing out all the subteties that are needed to make the role sympathetic. Carrie Fisher is charming and pretty as Elizabeth, Victor's bride, and David Warner evokes sympathy as the creature. its also nice to see Sir John Gielgud as the blind man, he gives a wonderfully understated performance. What the film lack is the novel's great ending. victor destroys the lab killing himself and the creature in this film. the novel of course has him track the creature through the north pole, perishing in the attempt. The lack of budget is, I am sure what prevented them from filming the novels ending. For a small budget however, it was a well done film.
Well acted, in undistinguished, version
Tin Man-525 September 1999
This is one of the many of British television's attempts at bringing Mary Shelley's horror classic to life. While it suffers from cheap production values and a pretty traditional version of the story with no real twists, the mostly Shakespearean cast is excellent (which isn't surprising.... After all, who knows how to tackle the classics better than the British?). Robert Powell makes a thoughtful Dr. Frankenstein, while David Warner makes a sympathetic monster who, in an interested change, is disfigured due to fire-burns rather than the normal stitches and decaying flesh. Carrie Fisher, who got top billing, appears in nothing short but a series of cameos.
**1/2 out of ****
**1/2 out of ****
low budget but well acted
Hessian49913 October 2001
This British version of Frankenstein suffers from a low budget, and it shows its lack of funding at times, but is actually not a bad movie. It does have the atmosphere of a TV movie, so it is somewhat hard to compare it to other film versions of the Frankenstein story. The makeup on the monster is rather hideous, but looks like something a novice could apply. For a low budget film, it does have great sets and period costumes. Carrie Fisher has less of a role than she is billed for but is still quite pretty and charming in this film (she does a good British accent for a native Californian). All in all, this version of Frankenstein is not nearly the classic the 1931 version was, but is entertaining and worth watching.
One of the best horror movies ever.
jacobjohntaylor123 November 2015
This a great film. It is very scary. Doctor Frankenstein creates a monster out of dead body parts. Best on the best horror book ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. This has great story line. It also has great story line. This movie also has great acting. This movie has great special effects. If you do not get scared of this movie then know movie will scary you. Robert Pwell is a great actor. For get Jesuse of Nazareth this is his best film. David Warner is a great actor. Titanic is great film. This is better. Carrie Fisher is a great actress. Star wars is a great film. This is better. This is not as good as Frankenstein (1931) but it is close to being has good. This a great remake.
Bland Version of the Story
Michael_Elliott30 October 2017
Frankenstein (1984)
** (out of 4)
Elizabeth (Carrie Fisher) becomes worried that her fiancé Victor Frankenstein (Robert Powell) is spending too much time with his experiments. It turns out he's creating a human (David Warner) out of body parts and trying to bring it back to life.
This made-for-television British film isn't exactly the best version of the story that you're going to see but it does feature a nice cast as well as a couple good scenes that make it tolerable. At the same time, there's no question that there's not enough here to make it worth watching unless you're like me and want to see every version of the story out there.
There are some major issues with the film with the biggest being the fact that the direction is rather lackluster and there's just no style or energy to the picture. The movie is about as laid back as you can get and it doesn't help that it moves at a very slow pace. Even at just 73-minutes the movie drags in spots and there's no question that it needed a lot more life.
I thought Powell was rather bland as Frankenstein and Fisher is even worse as Elizabeth. She doesn't even try for an accent and she just wasn't right for the part. John Gielgud appears briefly as the blind hermit but this scene just doesn't have much of an impact. Warner was good as the monster and he's certainly one of the highlights of the picture.
I did find the ending to be good and there's a great sequence where the monster confronts his maker and asks questions about why he's the way he is. This scene was beautifully done and one wishes the rest of the picture had the magic of this scene.
** (out of 4)
Elizabeth (Carrie Fisher) becomes worried that her fiancé Victor Frankenstein (Robert Powell) is spending too much time with his experiments. It turns out he's creating a human (David Warner) out of body parts and trying to bring it back to life.
This made-for-television British film isn't exactly the best version of the story that you're going to see but it does feature a nice cast as well as a couple good scenes that make it tolerable. At the same time, there's no question that there's not enough here to make it worth watching unless you're like me and want to see every version of the story out there.
There are some major issues with the film with the biggest being the fact that the direction is rather lackluster and there's just no style or energy to the picture. The movie is about as laid back as you can get and it doesn't help that it moves at a very slow pace. Even at just 73-minutes the movie drags in spots and there's no question that it needed a lot more life.
I thought Powell was rather bland as Frankenstein and Fisher is even worse as Elizabeth. She doesn't even try for an accent and she just wasn't right for the part. John Gielgud appears briefly as the blind hermit but this scene just doesn't have much of an impact. Warner was good as the monster and he's certainly one of the highlights of the picture.
I did find the ending to be good and there's a great sequence where the monster confronts his maker and asks questions about why he's the way he is. This scene was beautifully done and one wishes the rest of the picture had the magic of this scene.
pretty cool movie
confusedgrl13 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
this was the only Frankestein movie i had ever seen and it was awesome. yeah some parts were a little cheesy, like the part when Frankestien hugs the little boy (Henry) so hard he dies. i thought i was going to die of laughter!! not that the kid dies just the way he dies....no matter how you put that it still sounds bad. oh well it's one of those you have to see it to get it sort of things. The cast is good. The movie stars Carrie Fisher, Robert Powell, and David Warner.the acting was good , and i loved everyone's costume!!! the make up was good too, Frankenstein did a very believable performance. and Carrie fisher, who plays Elizabeth, was very good too. she was very charming and i loved like all of her dresses...pretty cool. this was a very good movie considering that it was a TV movie and the budget they probably had.
hey, look up there, i can see robert powell
servalansrazor1 September 2003
The box it came in was very obviously designed to confuse us lesser mortals who were so very aware of the existence of the Kenneth Brannagh/mr Bobby version, and were so eager to lay our hands upon it that we ended up with this superior tv version of the old promethean chestnut. Okay, so it plays around with the ideas in the novel,and has some nice atmospheric sets and moody lighting, although it has suffered inasmuch as it was recorded on video tape rather than film, but it is one of the few versions to give the creature more than a stumbling thug role and some half decent lines. Also, its apparently based upon the stage play, which ran for years and in itself, wasn't half bad. Here we have top brit also rans Robert Powell and David Warner goofing around in some rather nice locations and finally succoming to each other, there are lots of nice hints as to the alter-ego frankenstein/creature link and we have Johnny Geilgud teaching the creature about god. Carrie Fisher doesn't have too much to do, but then this was a tv production after all. What is so nice about this moovie is that it is aware of its restrictions and stays firmly with the story, in an age of special effects based super-blockbusters its nice to harken back to the time when films were shot on the directors lunch money and were actually concerned with plot development and had characters who demand respect.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
