Victor Frankenstein

One of the more faithful adaptations (though that doesn't say much) of Mary Shelley's novel, this film is worth a look if you can see it without spending much money...particularly if you're a fan of the book, as I am. It does, unfortunately, leave out some key points of the novel, but not as many as most adaptations.

Cinematically, the film is rather drab. Too many sustained static shots and a rather sparse score bog the film down a bit, and the acting is too uneven. Some performances are great, while others are mediocre, and a few are simply bad.

Overall, the film feels a bit uneven and minimalistic, but it doesn't stray into some of the ridiculous areas that many Frankenstein films do. If only the direction were a bit more lively and the running time a bit longer (in order to include more of the important notes from the novel), it could have been a great film.

One considerable step down from Kenneth Branaugh's 1994 adaptation.

The first time I saw this movie was when I was eleven...; my father said to me " both the cast and director are unknown, but see it...". He was right; this is a peacefully film, full of landscapes and brilliant moments... Per Oscarsson is a big-heart monster, sometimes sober, sometimes frightening... I think that is the best of all Frankensteins, because is ACTUALLY accurate to the novel...Calvin Floyd tries to make a different and real(real here means "the tale written by Mary Shelley")Frankenstein, and he doesn´t fail... So is very far from Whale, Branagh(what a catastrophe he made!) and of course, Warhol.

I had always been intrigued by this Swedish-Irish production(!) - a follow-up to the same film-makers' lackluster IN SEARCH OF Dracula (1975) - for being the screen's most faithful rendering (even more so than the disappointing "official" 1994 adaptation by Francis Ford Coppola and Kenneth Branagh) of the oft-filmed Mary Shelley horror tale; while it is decidedly uninspired and choppy in treatment, its essentially literate and stately approach makes the most of the novel's classical plot and, as a result, it remains full of interest throughout. At first, I felt that Leon Vitali – who, after appearing in BARRY LYNDON (1975), became Stanley Kubrick's long-time assistant! – was too youthful in appearance to be convincing in the title role but one must remember that, after all, he was supposed to be a medical student. On the other hand, distinguished Swedish actor Per Oscarsson (whose face is effectively made up in a deathly pallor complete with darkened lips) brings out all of the creature's various qualities: an imposing build, his confusion and solitude and, eventually, a lust for vengeance towards his resentful maker. Though obviously a low-budget effort, the film still manages to approximate the narrative's epic sweep without, however, resorting to overstatement – a fault which lies at the heart of the later 'definitive' Hollywood version's artistic (and commercial) failure. For the record, even though I am familiar with many another film version of the famous story, there are still a few more which I need to see, namely the 1973 Dan Curtis TV-adaptation, the darkly-comic modern French take of Alain Jessua's FRANKENSTEIN '90 (1984) and the futuristic Roger Corman version, FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (1990).

This very sober and (comparatively speaking) faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel stints on the usual horror aspects, but isn't that compelling on subtler psychological or dramatic terms to compensate. Per Oscarsson, cast as the re-animated "monster," is a fine actor who'd been extraordinary in Swedish classics like "Hunger." But even though the movie spends more time detailing the monster's cruel education in "humanity" than most, he still isn't allowed the depth needed to give a fully dimensionalized performance. (It doesn't help that Per isn't much tricked-out in makeup terms beyond black lipstick, and is forced to speak phonetic English.) Plus the desired pathos falls short, not to mention the expected suspense or shock value this film utterly fails to achieve. Nonetheless, it's watchable as a rare serious stab at addressing the novel rather than simply exploiting its cinematic heritage. The scenery is spectacular, the performances decent, the direction intelligently measured if lacking real atmosphere or excitement. I appreciated it--just wish it were better.

People who, like me, grew up in the nineties believing Kenneth Branagh's 1994 film was the ultimate and utmost faithful adaptation of the legendary Mary Shelley novel "Frankenstein" really ought to seek out this rare but excellent Swedish/Irish co-production from 1977. Except for one or two storylines and few design details, "Victor Frankenstein" closely follows the original novel, and - moreover - it's a magnificent but sadly forgotten horror film.

I can't think of a logical reason why the film is so obscure, but I can name several reasons why it's so good and comes so highly recommended. For starters, the story that Mrs. Shelley penned down remains unique and worth telling in all its original glory. As much as I love the James Whale classic, starring the immortal Boris Karloff, or Hammer's gruesome version featuring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, those classics made (too) many changes to the character of Victor Frankenstein and the "creature" he resurrected. Shelley's novel, and hence the screenplay of this film, revolves around a scientist who isn't evil or megalomaniacal, but simply obsessed and blinded by ambition. Once he succeeds to bring a human corpse back from the dead, Victor abruptly realizes he isn't entitled to play God, and abandons his creation. The Monster, who never asked to exist or live in solitude, seeks revenge and murders Victor's loved ones. The fallen scientist pursues his "mistake" to the end of the world (literally, the North Pole) to destroy him. In short, there's a lot more drama and melancholy in the novel - and in this faithful adaptation - than in most "Frankenstein" film versions out there.

Also, everything about "Victor Frankenstein" looks and feels exactly right! The gloomy early 19th century setting, the atmospheric scenery and filming locations (like the morgue, Frankenstein's attic, the blind man's house...), the slow but unnerving pace, the ominous music, the cruelly nihilistic murders committed by the creature, the minimalistic but highly efficient make-up, and the sublime casting. The depiction of Frankenstein's Monster, by the great Per Oscarsson, is fantastic. He authentically looks... dead. The skin is pale, the eyes are blood-red, the lips are black, but his posture nevertheless remains imposing. Leon Vitali is also perfect as Victor Frankenstein. He's not an arrogant and all-knowing scientist/doctor, but a young and naïve student who overestimated himself and underestimated the consequences of his acts.

Of course, there are elements that could be considered as weaknesses or shortcomings. The whole resurrection process, with the electrical offloading via a kite, seems ridiculously simple and unscientific. The creature is also astonishingly eloquent, intelligent, has a phenomenal sense for orientation, and travels at the speed of light over land and water. However, I'm not sure if these illogicalities can be blamed on the film, as they may have been taken over straight from the book. I should read it again. Everyone should...