Avis des utilisateurs

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

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

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).

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Do not let this one fool you. This NOT a faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. The very idea that the Frankenstein creature is decomposing contradicts that the creature was given life. He's alive, not just reanimated dead tissue, that's a major point in the story. It's a disappointing and senseless twist that is completely unnecessary. If you want a version of Frankenstein that actually follows Mary Shelley's novel check out the version produced by Hallmark and released to DVD by Lion's Gate starring Luke Goss as the creature. That mini-series version of Frankenstein from 2004 is the most faithful to the book.

I remember watching this movie as a child and not really understanding it until years later when the transformation from something beutiful to something ugly happened as Sarrazin was exposed to all the evils and negativity of his creatr and others.

An excellent movie for anyone wanting to know just what goes wrong on this planet...........

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.