This is probably the most intense portrayal of the Frankenstein story we’ve reviewed so far. That’s not necessarily to say it’s the best (though it is, in my opinion, very good). But in terms of drama, character development, and suspense, this movie is exceptional. It also is one of the most faithful to Shelley’s book. So, unlike Frankenstein: The True Story, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is an apt title.

This movie has its flaws. As a product of the 1990s, it gets a little too impressed with its own computer-generated special effects. And the movie kind of hyperventilates near its big climax. But even with the soulless CGI, this remains a character-driven movie, and an engaging one at that. And keeping your interest is no small feat for a movie of over 2 hours.

The Plot: As noted above, this is perhaps the most faithful portrayal of Shelley’s book. It opens with a late-18th century research vessel getting stuck in the Arctic, when an exhausted Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) collapses on the ice in front of the ship. True to Shelley’s story, we then hear Victor’s narrative about how he came to be here. It takes the form of a long flashback, starting with Victor’s childhood and a (somewhat treacly, for a movie like this) romance with his stepsister Elizabeth, played by Helena Bonham Carter.

Along the way Victor’s mother dies, and he makes the melodramatic declaration that “No one ever need die. I will stop this. I promise.” To fulfill that promise, he goes to medical school where he studies under a Professor Waldman (Monty Python’s John Cleese [!]), who has conducted similar research of his own. But Waldman warns Victor that the goal should be the preservation of life, not the creation of it. When Victor asks why not, Waldman says simply “Because it would result in an abomination.”

But Waldman is killed in scene with an anti-vaxer (this was 25 years before Covid!), and Victor obtains Waldman’s journals and pursues his research on creating life.

A creature (Robert DeNiro [!]) is created, and he’s understandably perplexed about his sudden appearance on the scene. As with Shelley’s book, Victor immediately regrets what he has done, loathes the creature, and abandons it, assuming it will just die without help and attention.

But, as we know, the creature doesn’t just disappear, but quickly learns the “ways of man.” He has taken Victor’s journal, and learns about his own creation. And then there’s that pivotal segment with the blind man (both in Shelley’s book and here), which is a poignant and valuable segment of the story. The creature is spurned by those (unlike the blind man) who can see him and who react to his ugliness. In fact, far from being born evil, the creature (both in the novel and here) learns cruelty from others. The creature soon realizes that he has no place in this world. So he pursues his creator (Frankenstein) and demands that he make him a mate just like himself.

Victor refuses to make a bride, so the creature begins killing off Victor’s family to get his revenge, reaching its peak when he kills Victor’s own bride, Elizabeth, on their wedding night. But here’s where this movie suddenly and inexplicably takes a sharp turn away from the original story: Victor carries the body of Elizabeth up to his laboratory, chops her head off, and attaches it to another female body (that he just happened to have up there?)

I suppose Victor thinks he can just pick up where he left off with his bride, but the creature shows up and claims her as his mate. The bride is caught between the two of them–the man who created her, and the creature who was made in the same way–and rather than choose, she becomes disgusted with the whole situation and burns herself to death. (Don’t you hate it when that happens?)

With that silly and unneeded detour out of the way, we get back to the original story: With nothing else to live for, Victor tracks the creature up to the Arctic, where Victor encounters Captain Walton as we saw at the beginning of the movie. With the flashback now played out, Victor dies and the creature comes onto the ship and finds Victor’s body. He weeps. Captain Walton, who’d considered Victor’s tale to be the ravings of a madman, now sees that the story was true. “Who are you?” he asks the creature. “He never gave me a name,” is the reply. “Why do you weep,” Walton asks. “Because he was my father.” Poignant stuff, that economically summarizes the conversation that Shelley wrote between the two. There’s then some dramatic scenes of a funeral pyre that reimagine a brief reference in Shelley’s novel. And then, in a direct copy of the scene from 1984’s Frankenstein (but not in Shelley’s novel), Walton, having witnessed Victor’s cautionary tale of monomania, decides to abandon his dangerous quest for the north pole and tells his crew that they’re going home. (To be fair, there is a line in Shelley’s book where a dying Victor tells Walton, “Farewell, Walton! Seek happiness in tranquillity [sic], and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries.” One could imagine Walton taking that to heart.)

The Monster: I never would have imagined De Niro for this part, but I have to admit that his is one of the best portrayals of the creature. He has deep scars from being stitched together, and speaks as one who has recently discovered a facility for speech. His is simultaneously a touching and frightening portrayal.

The process of creating the creature is portrayed as messy and dirty and frankly disgusting. And when it emerges from a tank of amniotic fluid, we can identify with Victor’s immediate revulsion.

The Atmosphere: The first part of this movie feels like a Merchant Ivory romance. But it takes a dark turn when Victor goes off to college, and it seems to revel in in-you-face scenes of childbirth bleeding, a pregnant woman’s water breaking, decapitations, hangings, and all manner of other disgusting things that can happen to a body. One wonders if Branagh realizes that you can imply plot developments without having to detail them in all their gory detail?

The movie does effectively convey the gritty, unclean and unholy aspect of creating life from corpses. The scenes of Frankenstein’s lab or positively disgusting, as are the scenes of the creature ripping Elizabeth’s beating heart from her chest, and Frankenstein grafting her head onto another body.

There’s also a few ill-advised flourishes, like a slow-motion fight scene that looks like something out of The Matrix. Also, Victor’s friend Henri Clerval (played by a lost-looking Tom Hulce) appears primarily just for comic relief.

The movie has an epic feel to it, and runs for over two hours. It’s got plenty of drama and pathos, and excellent acting….so it seems entirely unnecessary for it to employ that bombastic, soaring music in a misguided attempt to elevate the excitement. Instead, the musical score often becomes intrusive and distracting.

Overall, the movie is arresting, but it often feels like its a little too self-impressed.

General Comments: I wanted not to like this movie. I was prepared to be irritated by Kenneth Branagh’s hubris, and, c’mon, De Niro as the creature?? But for the most part, this movie works. I give the credit more to De Niro than to Branagh. De Niro simultaneously conveys anguish, confusion, anger, and also gentleness, wonder, and even love. All those feelings swirl inside him as he tries to figure out how to respond to his mistreatment by others. The questions he asks are haunting: What of my soul? Do I have one ? Who are these people of whom I am comprised. Did you ever consider the consequences of your actions? You gave me life, and then you left me to die. Who am I?

Overall, this movie is a powerful, poignant, and thoughtful take on the Frankenstein story that, with a few exceptions (notably the pointless and silly resurrection of Elizabeth) respects Mary Shelley’s original work.

Tomorrow we go to a significantly less serious portrayal of the Frankenstein story. Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie is up–you can watch the original, short, live-action version here (for free, starting at the 6 minute mark), or, if you’re insane, you could instead watch the later, full-length, animated version (but you’ll have to pay).

We now arrive at what could quite possibly be the absolute worst Frankenstein movie ever made. And I’m not just being a snob because Roger Corman is the director.

Remember Roger Corman? He’s often placed in the same category as Ed Wood, for his independent, low-budget monster movies in the 1950s and 1960s. He did a bunch of movies putatively based on Edgar Allan Poe stories, but other than the titles the original stories were unrecognizable. But, to be fair, the stuff Corman did wasn’t schlock exactly; it was just wasn’t mainstream, and definitely done on the cheap. He’s been called the Pope of Pop Cinema, but I’d call him the thinking man’s Ed Wood. (Corman still walks the earth today, at age 95.)

Anyway, Corman stopped directing movies in 1970. An then, he briefly emerged in 1990 to direct one final film: Frankenstein Unbound. And that’s the movie we review today.

The Plot: Well. A scientist inventing weapons for the US military in 2031 accidentally cuts a hole in the time/space continuum (or whatever), and finds himself and his cool car transported back to 19th-century Switzerland. This scientist, named Joe Buchanan (played by John Hurt), almost literally bumps into Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia), who’s impressed with Buchanan’s high-tech car and watch. A little later he is introduced to Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda), and tells her he’s very impressed with her book (that she’s just started writing). It seems that Shelley used the real Dr. Frankenstein as her inspiration for her book. Anyway, Frankenstein has of course made a male creature, and now he wants Buchanan’s help to make the creature a female mate. This is done, but Buchanan has managed to secretly power up a laser from his car, and he blasts the laboratory into the future. They’re now in a futuristic city, and Frankenstein inexplicably kills the woman he just created, so the creature he’d created earlier kills him. So it’s up to Buchanan to kill the remaining creature, which he somehow does with more lasers. The end.

My plot synopsis might not be entirely in line with the writers’ intent. (The plot comes from a 1973 science fiction novel, and then Corman wrote the screenplay.) But this is, quite frankly, a confusing movie. Worse, I can’t see a point to this movie; despite the science fiction element, it doesn’t really break any new ground about Frankenstein’s motivations, the creature’s view of the world, or larger existential matters. It just takes the basic characters and surrounds them with 1990-era CGI.

The Monster: It’s a different and frightening look for the Frankenstein monster, so I’ll give them credit for that. The creature is quite articulate, but angry. Kind of like the sociology professors at Cal Berkeley.

As noted above, the creature isn’t developed much in this movie, and spends most of his time breaking things and killing people. But he does have some conversations with Buchanan, which seem to reveal that he’s inquisitive about who makes whom. Is this a form of theological question?

The creature is portrayed by Nick Brimble, a tall chap from Bristol who’s appeared in a number of movies, including Kevin Costner’s disastrous Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

The Atmosphere: There are some good settings, particularly in the Swiss countryside. But much of the movie (especially in the second half) is dedicated to long, drawn-out special effects scenes with lasers and electrical discharges and what-have-you. It reminds me of that long sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey that just shows a bunch of weird colors and suchlike for what seems like 15 minutes. In both cases, it’s as though the movie makers got too excited about the new possibilities of CGI, forgetting entirely about the story line.

Oh, and as long as we’re on the topic, this film also uses those noisy, fussy portrayals of “future” technology that were so prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s: Anything involving a computer would have these long and pointless animations play out on the screen, accompanied with that high-pitched trilling noise. Yeah, in the future, we’re going to be devoting all our bandwidth to these “poser” sequences. Kind of like the Droid phone I briefly had in the early 2000s that would announce “Droid!” in a robotic voice every time I turned it on. Yeah, like that’s really necessary or even appreciated.

General Comments: This movie was boring. This movie made no sense. This movie got too distracted with its own graphics. This movie sucks.

Tomorrow, we finally get to see a big-budget Frankenstein movie! At a cost of $45 million (and that’s in 1994 dollars), Kenneth Branagh made the somewhat hubris-tinged Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Does it live up to its claim? Watch it on YouTube to find out!

We come now to what some have described as a French version of Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein. It’s a comedic spoof of the Frankenstein story, but (unlike Young Frankenstein) it’s a color movie. And it’s set in 1984. And it involves lots of nudity and sexual situations. Come to think of it, I don’t think this really deserves to be associated with Young Frankenstein at all!

The Plot: We once again have a current-day descendant of the Frankenstein family, wishing to continue the experiments of the infamous Baron Frankenstein. His goal is to create a man who is not a monster. This current-day Frankenstein (confusingly named Victor, just as the original Frankenstein had been) succeeds in creating a man with an electronic brain (it’s 1984, after all). The creature is generally good natured, articulate, and looks pretty much like any other man, except that his face is heavily bandaged for much of the movie. The only problem is that he has moments where he’s prone to unintentional violence, resulting in a few deaths. And he also has a very strong libido. So Victor makes him a female mate. This leads to the predictable hijinks and homicide we expect from a French Frankenstein spoof.

The Monster: The creature is named “Frank” (har) and is played by French singer Eddy Mitchell. It’s a pretty understated performance. Other than having excessive strength and a profound cluenessness about modern life, there isn’t much to connect him with Shelley’s creature.

The Atmosphere: This movie plays as a romantic comedy. Or maybe a dark romantic comedy, for there’s more death and dismemberment than in your typical Meg Ryan flick. There are various episodes of situational humor, as Frank learns to drive a car, for instance. Or to eat a bowl of spaghetti. I wouldn’t say it’s comedy gold, but it has its moments.

The movie does have some of the more traditional Frankenstein scenes (a castle, cobweb, graveyards), which, while they’re used to a more cartoonish effect, do give this movie its moments of true Frankenstein flavor.

Throughout the movie there’s an incessant goofy, French-comedy-style musical score that desperately tries to convey mirth and zaniness, even during the (allegedly) scary scenes. It’s the equivalent of a laugh track on a Flintstones cartoon–OK, we get it! This is supposed to be funny. Noted.

General Comments: I don’t really get French cinema. If you’re looking for a comic version of the Frankenstein story, Young Frankenstein serves very well. What’s more, YF is satisfyingly respectful of the original.

Tomorrow it’s another odd take on the Frankenstein tale, this time directed by Roger Corman. Frankenstein Unbound is available for free on YouTube.

Several of you wrote in to suggest I review The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I was not planning to do this, because it’s really not a Frankenstein movie per se (indeed, the name Frankenstein is never uttered). However, one of you pointed out that Mad Monster Party doesn’t include the name Frankenstein in the title, and I reviewed that. Plus, the lead character in Rocky Horror is Frank-N-Furter, which obviously is a reference to Frankenstein. So I relent.

For the one of two of you who aren’t already aware, the Rocky Horror Picture Show is a comedic take on the B-grade monster movies of the 1950s and 1960s. It also is shot through with sexual references and themes. Still, it’s pretty tame by today’s standards, and it’s not nearly as scandalously sexual as, say, Andy Warhol’s Flesh for Frankenstein (which I’m definitely not reviewing for this series). Oh, and Rocky Horror is also a surprisingly good musical. Now, there’s been a ton of reviews and commentary on this movie, so I’m not going to attempt to compete with them. Instead, let’s just consider this as a Frankenstein film…

The Plot: Brad and Janet, two just-engaged and prudish young lovers, are driving home from a wedding when their car breaks down. They seek help at a roadside castle (as one does). There, they encounter Dr. Frank-N-Furter, who’s a transvestite, bisexual, mad scientist dressed in a black corset, fishnet stockings, and such.

Frank-N-Furter is campily played by Tim Curry in his first movie role…a role for which he will forever be associated. Anyway, FNF (I’m tired of spelling out Frank-N-Furter) has created a man (“with blond hair and a tan,” who is “good for relieving my tension.” If you get the drift.) FNF has transplanted into this creature half a brain from Eddie, a 1950’s greaser/biker played by Meat Loaf. OK, so I guess there’s a least a dim glimmer of the Frankenstein theme here…

FNF had kidnapped Eddie, and his uncle Everett Scott comes to the castle looking for him. After a bunch of sexual shenanigans and some great songs, Eddie is dead, the new creation (named Rocky) is in love with Janet, and FNF, fed up with everyone, turns them into statues. He reanimates them for a final dance sequence, when suddenly his supposedly faithful handyman shows up with a laser gun and announces he’s beaming the castle and its contents back to the planet of Transexual in the galaxy of Transylvania.

The handyman kills FNF, Rocky picks up his body and carries it to the top of an RKO Radio Pictures prop on the stage, and the handyman kills him too. The whole castle is then transported to Transylvania, and somehow Brad and Janet manage to escape.

The Monster: Frank-N-Furter’s creature, Rocky, is a buff blond stud in gold hotpants. The only attempt they made to link him to the basic Frankenstein story is they hid his belly button….because he’s not born of woman.

Rocky was played by Peter Hinwood, who was a model with no significant acting experience. (In this movie he didn’t even sing his own songs, which were dubbed.) After Rocky Horror, Hinwood essentially retired from show biz and became an antiques dealer.

The Atmosphere: The look and feel of this movie is at the center of its popularity. (It certainly isn’t the plot!) The sets are cartoonish monster movie sets with a castle and a laboratory and a few skeletons. Notably, much of the movie was filmed on location at a British country estate named Oakley Court–the site of a number of Hammer productions! Many of the props used in the movie had been used in Hammer films, as well. According to the infallible Wikipedia, “The tank and dummy used for Rocky’s birth originally appeared in The Revenge of Frankenstein.”

The film includes references to a number of old movies, both generic and specific. The characters are outlandishly dressed (or undressed, as the case may be). And the whole thing is suffused with a collection of surprisingly catchy pop-rock tunes with witty lyrics, set to choreographed dancing. Yes, it’s an unlikely setup, and the critics initially hated the movie, but it became a cult classic on the midnight movie circuit, and audience members would come time and again to speak the lines along with the movie, dress up as their favorite characters, and otherwise become involved in proto-cosplay. Oh, and the movie has turned out to be the longest-running theatrical release in movie history.

General Comments: I admit that I watched this movie a couple of times in the theater in the 1970s. And I confess to finding it entertaining. I still think it’s well done, unique, and entertaining, and it has a catchy soundtrack that’s far better than most musicals of the era. Admittedly, its story falls flat. Not only is the plot paper thin, but it really has very little to do with the Frankenstein tale other than there is a mad scientist who creates a man. So, don’t think you can watch this as a way to fake your book report on Mary Shelley’s book. Still, as a visual and auditory experience, it’s worthy.

Tomorrow, we continue our look at the less serious Frankenstein efforts, with Frankenstein 90. I’m watching a DVD from the library (as I can’t find it online). But here are a few scenes to give you a flavor of it.

In 1984, another made-for-TV Frankenstein movie was broadcast. I can’t imagine in that age of The Jeffersons, Punky Brewster, Who’s the Boss, and The A Team, anybody was clamoring for another Frankenstein movie. And yet, that’s what we got. At just a little over an hour (excluding commercials), this barely skims the basic elements of the story. So, what distinguishes this version? Read on!

The Plot: It’s pretty much the familiar outlines of the usual Frankenstein tale: Victor Frankenstein creates a man from dead tissue, the creature demands that Frankenstein make him a mate, Frankenstein refuses, the creature kills members of Frankenstein’s family, and there’s an ultimate showdown. Along the way we see the familiar set pieces: The blind man who befriends the creature, the child who befriends him, the death of said child, the suspicions of the villagers, etc. In the end, both the creature and the creator die. But in a nice twist, there’s no pandemonium of avalanches or villagers with torches or exploding castles. Instead, Frankenstein and the creature seem to agree that they both need to go, and they quietly set fire to the room they’re in.

The Monster: The creature is played by British actor David Warner. His is one of the most interesting portrayals of the Monster on film (well, on videotape, in this case). There are no electrodes on the neck, no flat top head, no stitches, no misproportioned body. It’s just a guy who’s face has been burned (presumably from the high voltage current used to animate him).

And this guy’s feelings, motivations, and actions are entirely relatable. He’s not angry, exactly. He’s lonely and confused, wondering who he is and who made him. He is highly literate and articulate (courtesy of tutoring from the blind man). He knows his Bible and seeks answers to theological questions. And he is confused about the difference between The Creator (God) and the creature’s creator (Frankenstein). There’s a powerful exchange near the end of the movie where the creature cries in anguish “You gave me life…but why did you not give me a soul?!” To which Frankenstein replies with similar anguish, “Because I am not God!” (This is almost the polar opposite of Colin Clive’s “Now I know what it’s like to be God!” in the 1931 movie.)

That’s probably the strongest feeling of this movie: Anguish. The creature is in emotional pain and is perplexed about his place in the world. He is lonely (which is why he asks for a mate that is created by man, as he is). When Frankenstein refuses (“I shall never make another creature like you!”), your heart breaks. This is the only Frankenstein movie I’ve watched where the creature actually cries. He’s the most human of the “monsters” we’ve seen so far.

The Atmosphere: This is clearly a budget-constrained movie. The sets are minimalist, the effects are nonexistent, and the musical score is clunky and distractingly grating and loud, sometimes drowning out the dialogue.

There’s also that inescapable 1970s/early 1980s vibe. Victor Frankenstein is sporting that Chia Pet hairdo that was so popular with the men on the Brady Bunch.

• 

• 

Another 1970s/80s icon that appears in this movie is Carrie Fisher. She is the third Star Wars actor we’ve encountered so far in these movies (after Peter Cushing/Grand Moff Tarkin and David Prowse/Darth Vader). Oddly, she sings a song in the middle of the movie. It’s said that she considered herself to be a talented singer, and wanted more public exposure of her music. In fact, she evidently insisted on singing as a requirement for her appearance in the much-maligned Star Wars Holiday special in 1978. I guess she exacted similar concessions with the makers of this film. Here she plays Victor’s fiance. She really doesn’t have much involvement in moving the plot along, but she sure looks pretty.

General Comments: Even though it has poor production values and an inescapable 1980s ethos, I like the film. And that’s almost entirely because of the way it focuses on emotions. We get to truly experience the creature’s feelings, as well as the emotional responses of Victor, his wife, his friend Henry, his father, and the blind man and others. The decision to ignore most of the usual trappings of a Frankenstein movie, and instead focus on emotions, I think is effective and makes this little-known version of the story worthwhile.

Tomorrow I give in to pleadings from some of my readership and review The Rocky Horror Picture Show. (It’s available free for those of you with Amazon Prime Video. Otherwise you can rent it on YouTube.