Frankenstein

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.

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!

This was a movie that I discovered years ago when searching for different adaptations of the source material. What caught my interest here was that this featured David Warner and Carrie Fisher, both actors who I recognized from childhood favorite movies. I picked this up on VHS years ago. I couldn't watch that copy due to not having the proper cords. I found it streaming on YouTube. I'm now giving this a second watch as part of my Foray through the Fours.

Synopsis: a scientist who is obsessed with creating life does it, with tragic results.

We start with a man being executed by hanging. We do not see his face, just the bottom of the scaffold and his feet appearing. The film then shifts to a man riding in a carriage. His name is Henry Clervell (Michael Cochrane). He stops off to ask for directions. It's been years since he's been to Frankenstein's castle and didn't remember the way.

It then takes us over to our main character, Victor Frankenstein (Robert Powell). He meets with gravediggers and they report about the execution. He tells them that he cannot use this specimen since it is assumed it broke his neck. They say the knot was not tied correctly so he was strangled. This sways Victor to agree to use the body.

Henry arrives at the estate where he's met by Elizabeth (Fisher). She is engaged to be married to Victor. We learn that he is completely absorbed into his work currently. Victor comes home and is elated to hear his old friend has come. He assures Elizabeth that he will attend dinner. His work can wait until later. Henry also meets with Victor's younger brother, Willliam (Graham McGrath).

There are a couple more members of this household who are glad to see Henry. Alphonse (Terence Alexander) is the father and he recounts stories of how Henry was always over when this trio were growing up. I'll add here that Alphonse is confined to a wheelchair due to an ailment. Another member is Justine (Susan Wooldridge), who is a housekeeper. It seems that here and Henry have feelings for each other. During this dinner we learn that Henry is staying about a week. He also has been officially trained to be a surgeon. This draws the interest of Victor.

A storm approaches and Victor leaves dinner early. The body arrives and he takes it to his laboratory. Henry followed his friend. Victor lets him in and tells him what he is working on. He wants his friend's help. He is leery about this at first but intrigued by what he's told. He aids in the surgery to place a brain into the body.

The goal is to use lightning from the storm to bring life to Victor's creation. It doesn't work, as it doesn't seem to have enough power. By luck, lightning strikes directly and overloads the machines. This brings the monster to life. It does flee into the storm and falls into a nearby river. Victor is disheartened, believing all his work was wasted.

This creature survives. By luck, he finds a blind man who gives his shelter and food. He also helps teach this entity to read. Things take a turn when thieves come to this home while the creature is out. The monster then seeks out his maker to create him a companion.

That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Now where I'll start is that I'll try not to be too harsh in my critiques. At this point, there have been variations and adaptations of the story. If you watch too many close together, you can pick out the flaws much easier. If memory serves, this is using more of the play than the novel so that could also be part of the issue there.

Let me delve more into what I'm getting here. I think that this does well in condensing the tale into an 81-minute movie. What don't necessarily learn why Victor is hellbent on making his creature, outside of being a man of science. He believes that he can do it and he's determined to succeed. This version is interesting to have Victor working alone and then Henry, his childhood friend who is now a trained surgeon visit, to help him.

I'm going to shift gears and talk about the best part of this, which is the acting. Powell is fine as Victor. I don't know if we get array of emotions from him, but what this does well in doing is making him manic to succeed in his experiment. I do like that the feeling lets up after he believes he's failed to take time away. Warner brings good size to the creation. My only gripe there is that he doesn't look like a monster outside of having a burned face. That makes sense with what brought him to life. The best performance is Fisher. She isn't given a lot to work with but she at least brings the emotion. Cochrane was good as Henry. I believe that De Lacey, portrayed by John Gielgud, was the blind man. I like him as he helps bring emotion by teaching things to the creature. Other than that, I thought Wooldridge, Alexander, McGrath and the rest of the cast were fine for what was needed in rounding this out.

Next then is filmmaking. I'll give the positives first. The cinematography is fine. I thought they did a solid job in framing this. It also feels like the era that it was set in, being more Victorian. I'm glad that they don't lean too much into the pseudo-science that brings the monster to life. We get limited effects here, but we also don't need them. The only gripe would be a bit more to make the monster look uglier. It is a TV movie so it is fine. The biggest issue here is that the pace is too slow. It feels like they're just out to present the information, not making it exciting enough and that causes it to feel flat for me.

In conclusion, if you want a cliff notes version of the story, this is what you're looking for. This removes major parts of the story to save time, but it tries to build emotion without being strong enough to do so. That's not to say there aren't good parts. The acting is solid. Fisher leading the way, but she isn't given much to work with. I did like Powell, Warner and Cochrane as well. This is made well enough. Being a TV movie, I think limits it a lot. What I'll say here is that this is interesting that it was made. It's fine for what we get without standing out unfortunately.

My Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

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 ****

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.