Roger Corman's Frankenstein

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

I first saw this little known early ninties title on HBO not long after its release. I must say I found it to be quite memorable, with excellent performances by John Hurt and Raul Julia as well as Bridget Fonda. I love the 1800 settings in Geneva (actually filmed in Italy) and the way Hurt slipped back in time and found where he was. (according to his car "we are alone") so cool. The monster was real creepy and he actually talks. All in all, a very good movie I highly recommend. As of this writing, its not out on DVD that I am aware of but if it does come out, it will definately be worthy of my collection.

In 1990, B-movie god Roger Corman would return to the director's chair to 'show the kids how it's done'. I'm not sure why he chose to do this, as after his series of Edgar Allen Poe adaptations in the sixties; Corman has to prove nothing to nobody. Anyway, he decided otherwise and this film adaptation of Brian Aldiss's novel of the same title is the result. The plot absolutely reeks of something that would make a great campy B-movie, and while this is very messy indeed; Corman has created something that is indeed very camp, and very much a B-class film. The film, however, is absolutely nothing the like best films that Corman has made; but it does show that three decades after he made films like 'The Terror' and ' The Little Shop of Horrors', the man that made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime hasn't lost his love for really silly movies! The plot blends classic literature with period drama and Sci-Fi, and sees the American inventor of a new weapon being sent back in time to 1817 Switzerland, where he meets Mary Shelly, along with the inspirations for her book; Victor Frankenstein and his monster!

I'm sure that the themes were a lot better handled in the book, but even though this is a very silly film; they still shine through. In the classic story, Frankenstein created his monster with the intention of helping mankind, and our scientist here has done the same thing. Both men's experiments ended up going wrong with dire consequences, and the story harks back to Shelly's classic theme of how man should not try and play God. One thing I really didn't like about this film was the make-up on the monster. It looks silly, and not in a good way; and since the monster is a big part of the story, it brings the film down a little. Corman has recruited a decent cast for this flick, including John Hurt, Raul Julia and Bridget Fonda. This is hardly an actor's film, however, and none of them put in good performances. John Hurt looks bored most of the time, and the rest of the cast are on autopilot; but like I say, it's not an actor's film so it doesn't matter. Overall, I can definitely see why a lot of people don't like this film - but if, like me, you have a penchant for ridiculous movies; you'll probably find something to like here.

as a die hard Gothic horror movie fan i try to watch all the versions of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein,some great some really bad.when i heard that roger corman was going to direct this i was excited,roger corman has'nt directed a movie in a very long time so i knew this was going to be quite special.with Raul Julia,john hurt,Bridgett Fonda,and Jason Patric in the cast,its a big budget production,the story is kind of bizarre,what if Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was based on a true story? well this kind hearted but well meaning mad scientist(hurt)gets sent back to the past with his futuristic talking car(like kit from knight-rider)and meets Mary Shelly(Fonda)and Dr Frankenstein(Julia)and his monster(nick brimble)this movie was based on the novel of the same name.its got a hauntingly good score,everything works,i liked Frankenstein unbound,i believe Mary Shelly would be proud.I'm glad roger corman directed this,he did a great job.8 out of 10.

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