Terror of Frankenstein (1977)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Beginning cynically. Why is it people assume if it's made forty years ago it must be accurate to the book? The Count Dracula mini-series with Louis Jordan, so many people praise as being more accurate than the Gary Oldman film yet it's not. It makes Mina and Lucy siblings, it combines Arthur and Quincey, Dracula did not de age... But I diagress... On with this.Begins fairly well enough. It follows the book for the most part. It changes how the creature got the journal, how his hair looks (though it is long). Justine is left out entirely. Neither Victor or his creation are portrayed that sympathetically here. I think that's why I prefer the 2004 Hallmark version because you can see the mistakes they both make, the cruelty they both have, and yet you can also pity both of them.This version is not bad but it's slowly paced. It's odd. The 2004 Hallmark Frankenstein (which is a bit more faithful to the book in regard to how the creature looked and maintaining all the characters) is three hours yet this hour and a half version feels longer. It would also have done well with a better budget.Oh, one thing that I was very happy about is that they remembered Victor Frankenstein had not made the creature with pure science. He had studied books on alchemy and the occult, magick, Agrippa and Paracelsus. He even discussed homunculi. Very few versions acknowledge that there may have been alchemy and even magick in the creature's creation. Few people realize this was not an anti-science "Don't meddle in the affairs of God" story. The creature would have been fine if he had not been rejected by his creator. It was about parental responsibility, judging by appearances, forgiveness and how revenge brings no peace. Those were those were the real lessons of Mary Shelley's story. This version is not bad but I still strongly prefer the 2004 Hallmark mini-series of Frankenstein.This isn't a bad Frankenstein but the 2004 version with Luke Goss remains my favorite. I am happy this version exists so it's not a film I regret watching. I don't think there is any film I truly regret watching. There are just some films I feel better about being in existence than others because of what effort goes in to them. This tried to be true to the book but the 2004 Hallmark version with Luke Goss simply did it better.Also it was a little hard for me to get used to the light haired creature. He was so much like the book, including hair length, save for the hair color. It's a petty detail but it stood out for me.Something about it was a little dry, a little dispassionate. It's not horrible, just weak. Like the BBC play version of The Picture of Dorian Gray.At least they tried to follow the book.

It seems in the early-mid 70's, everybody was making Frankenstein and Dracula movies, some of them purporting to be adaptations of their respective books. A few actually did come close, with mixed results. TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN, as it turns out, is the single MOST faithful-to-the-book of the large (and still growing) number of Frankenstein films. It's got a good (if mostly unknown) cast, fabulous locations, a magnificent "classical"-style music score, and an almost tragically tiny budget. Oh well! A good friend of mine likes to say that a lot of great movies have been made from terrible books (though he seems to forget the reverse is also often true), and that being faithful to a novel, especially a "1st" novel by a particular author who may not have learned their craft yet, isn't necessarily a good thing. It CAN be done-- the BBC's "Count Dracula" with Louis Jourdan proves that beyond any shadow of doubt! TERROR... might make a good double-feature with that on those grounds, though it would come off looking bad by comparison (and considering the BBC film was shot on videotape, that should say a lot).I've been watching every Frankenstein film in my collection in a marathon, and that includes a number of adaptations, and it's interesting to note the differences in details and styles between them. Some things that stand out in this, from the beginning, include how wonderful some of the characters are, like Elizabeth (fiancee), William (younger brother), Henry (dashing best friend), and the comparatively dull and rather homely (in my opinion!) Victor does look nuts to be going away to school when he's got such a great home life. Then there's Prof. Waldman, who at first dismisses Victor's interest in alchemy and magic, then a mere 2 years later, actually encourages him to continue whatever experiment he's doing (despite moments earlier suggesting he take a much-needed vacation with his family), on a "grander scale"-- thus unwittingly planting the seed for the horrible, "unholy" experiment to come! Nearing the end, Victor suddenly starts asking himself, "What am I DOING?" --but continues anyway! And for the first time in any adaptation, he actually RUNS AWAY in fear from what he's brought to life, then wonders if he didn't imagine it, then nervously goes home for the holidays with his best friend, after being unable to locate his creation.And suddenly William, the sort of younger brother I wish I'D had, gets murdered-- for no apparent reason. Only when Victor catches up with the killer do we learn what went on in the meantime. Having recently seen the Dan Curtis version, which may the 2ND-most faithful adaptation, I have to say I think that film made a wise decision to eliminate the flashback structure and tell everything in the order it happened. (This entire film is one long flashback, as it STARTS in the Arctic, with Victor telling his story to the ship captain who's hell-bent on expanding man's horizons and seeking unknown benefits to mankind-- at whatever the cost! Interesting parallel there.) Also, every time the DC version made changes, it wound up making the creature MORE sympathetic, more sad, and that wound up turning that film into a heart-wrenching tragedy. Not so here. This monster is either amoral, or just plain EVIL, depending on mood-swings-- and repeatedly justifies every destructive action it takes-- like BURNING DOWN the house of the old blind man. After seeing the blind man and/or his family in several versions, even I was shocked by that turn! One minor failing of the DC version is the scene when Victor changes his mind about creating a mate-- SECONDS before completing the job. It was a moment that seemed ill-explained within that story. Here, Victor changes his mind after witnessing another family NEEDLESSLY slaughtered by his creation. How IS he to trust someone so blatantly evil? If anything, one might ask, WHY didn't he pack some serious firepower and try to KILL his monster when he was alone with the guy? (Of course, that's not how the author wrote it...) The ending, like the rest, remains faithful, as Victor dies (from exhaustion and stress?) before his creation's eyes, who then laments to the ship captain how Victor created him-- but then refused to take responsibility for life, and that now, death is the only consolation he has, as in death, he will no longer be a monster.Now, maybe in other hands, a truly faithful adaptation still awaits to be made which can also be artistically and emotionally compelling-- which this, admittedly, kinda falls short of. I'm afraid after all the carnage, I really had NO sympathy left for the monster at all, and not much more for Victor. I recommend to anyone who likes this film, to follow it up with a viewing of the Dan Curtis version-- and SEE if that one doesn't tear your heart out (emotionally speaking) by the end.

Its a shame this movie never made the video nasty (or DP39) as it would have achieved instant cult status and more people would have seen it, it would have also had a special ed but hey, I am grateful to have seen it after wanting to do so for many years. Great acting, very faithful to the original script, it totally made sense in a way the others never (although I like most of them) this is the best version there is. The acting, casting and atmosphere are as good as it gets, the monster is creepy, tall and menacing and soulless, he hates his creator and you feel sorry for Victor, he made a mistake meddling with the creation of life and is hounded by the monster. Very chilling, everyone should see this movie, its that good. One of my favourite films ever and as a bit of an anorak, I have seen many 1000's.

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.