Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

TinsHeadline Touches You

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Nigel P For a project with a running time in excess of three hours, 'Frankenstein: The True Story' seems in a hurry to get on with it, at least initially. Five minutes in, and we've already witnessed the death of Frankenstein's brother William and his subsequent frustration with the fatality; his fianceé Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) is exasperated by his plans to thwart death by recreating life – it seems as if the telling of the story has almost started without us! Once we've been hurriedly ushered in, the pace slows considerably and most of the first 'chapter' proves to be extremely talkie. Many ominous musings about creating 'the second Adam', some realistic dismembered limbs and the steady unveiling of the incredible cast notwithstanding; it is a necessary build-up to Frankenstein's obsession getting more delirious, and with his friend Clerval's passing, it is finally time to put the impressive laboratory set to good use.David McCallum as Clerval – in this adaption, a medical man (and brain donor) even more driven than Frankenstein himself - is afflicted by a physical malady that fuels his intent. A plethora of famous faces also includes Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, Tom Baker (only months before his acclaimed role in Doctor Who), Peter Sallis, Yootha Joyce, and – excellent as Prima – Jane Seymour. Considering that Leonard Whiting as Frankenstein is the least prolific in that gang, he is never upstaged by his co-stars; one wonders why he didn't enjoy a lengthier career.Michael Serrazin's very human looking creature is something of a disappointment initially, purely because he is so un-terrifying. No misshapen monster, his slender, bandaged form is indeed what Clerval seemed to be striving for. And yet, like Michael Gwynn's human monster in Hammer's 'Revenge of Frankenstein (1958)', this is a prelude to genuine tragedy – that the handsome, playful, contented child-man soon witnesses his looks deteriorate cruelly. It is telling that when 'pretty', his childish ways amuse his creator – as ugliness begins to take hold, Victor loses patience with him. Serrazin puts in a consistently superb performance throughout, ranging from charming, to vulnerable, miserable, vengeful and downright demonic.The second and final chapter begins after the Creature's unsuccessful suicide attempt and it is during this episode the already tenuous titular claim of a 'true' story becomes even more fractured – but that can be forgiven when the results are so entertaining.Prima proves to overshadow the original creation in every way possible – embraced by high society, loved by all she meets, in fact infuriatingly perfect – especially at manipulation and bitchiness. In possibly this story's most famous scene, she pays the price. The only bit of the original Agatha, with whom the creature had formed an attachment, is her head; in a splendid scene, in front of all, the dishevelled, betrayed, deteriorating creature, violently removes it.After this, the pace enters the uneven phase it did at the beginning. In no time at all, a ship bound for America is an epic battle ground. The creature, now full of understandable hate, has a demented, fiendish persona – laughing as he hoists the terrified Polidori to his death (his – or Clerval's – mocking chants of 'Poli Dolly' thrown against the stormy skies), reduced to skeletal scraps by the lightning he deplores.Despite some unconvincing day-for-night shots, and a lacklustre dummy used for a clifftop stunt, this remains a visually impressive spectacle. 'The True Story' is an intelligent, brilliantly played take on the original novel. It also contains nods (deliberately or otherwise) to other filmic versions and yet presents its own very memorable version of the classic tale.

tonstant viewer "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.

Robert J. Maxwell In the prologue, the script has James Mason, the actor, come out and show us Mary Shelley's grave and explain the origin of the story. Then the script more or less buries Shelley's original under a collapsing iceberg of additional myth, fantasy, and whimsical repetition.This TV miniseries comes in two parts. Part One isn't bad. Leonard Whiting is Victor Frankenstein. David MacCallum is his mentor in building the creature (Michael Sarazzin) using electrical energy and parts of cadavers.Christopher Isherwood was behind the script and -- well, I'll tell you. If this isn't an allegory I don't know what is. Sarazzin, as the creature, climbs from his gurney wearing only a few strips of bandages, his jewels prominent, his face and hair carefully groomed. "Beautiful!" gasps Frankenstein. And with a sweet and beckoning smile the creature repeats, "Beautiful." The two handsome young men get along quite well together, though to be sure one of them is rather dead. Frankenstein's fiancée, Elizabeth, turns pretty much into the beard. Oh, sure, he's engaged to her but we know in which direction his affections lie.But now our story turns a bit. The creature suffers the agonizing fate of every narcissist. He ages -- and quickly. And as he ages his features collapse and seem to rot, so that he shortly begins to look like Dorian Gray's portrait. (Another allegory there, which we needn't go into.) The creature, discovering that he's turned ugly and feeling bitter, begins to brood, and Frankenstein locks him up and begins to pursue his plans with Elizabeth again. The creature gets out and visits Frankenstein and Elizabeth at a fancy ball. He turns out to be one of those rowdy guests you find at every party -- smashing mirrors, windows, and furniture, and killing a few guests.Somewhere around here, Part One ended and Part Two began. Part Two was a mistake. The creature takes a back seat most of the time. Instead, enter Dr. Polidori (James Mason), no relation to the Polidori who shared that weekend with Shelley and the rest. Polidori informs Frankenstein that the BEST way to bring a fabricated body to life is by using chemicals, not electrical energy, and for a moment we expect them to begin arguing like two yentas over the back fence discussing a recipe.At any rate, Polidori enlists Frankenstein's help in creating a female body -- this time using HIS methods. She turns out to be Jane Seymour, which is a considerable improvement over Michael Sarazzin if you ask me, even though we don't get to see her wearing three or four bandages.There's a problem, however. If Frankenstein's monster was flawed in that it aged too quickly, Polidori's creature (whom Polidori names "Prima") turns out to be thoroughly cuckoo. She strangles a cat for no reason. Well, I guess there's ALWAYS a reason to strangle a cat, but some of her other behavior is just plain shocking. I forget most of the other things, but it doesn't matter. Seymour too interrupts a fancy ball, doing a charming, impromptu pas de seul.Now Victor Frankenstein begins to look upon Prima with more than the usual admiration a scientist feels for an invention. Who wouldn't? Elizabeth, now Frankenstein's bride, begins to get jealous -- and so does the original CREATURE, who wrenches off Seymour's head. What a dirty trick.They all wind up dead in the arctic. That includes Frankenstein's creature, although he's described as having an "iron body" impervious to cold and is shown to be immune to bullets too. But I guess he not only doesn't age well. He doesn't travel well either.The acting's not bad and the production values are good for TV. There are many cameos -- Gielgud, Wilding, Moorehead, Richardson, and others -- but the parts aren't substantial.It didn't really matter that the story didn't follow Mary Shelley's original very closely, although many of the issues it raised (science vs. theology) are still relevant. The main problem was that most of Part Two was unnecessary, almost redundant. In Part One Frankenstein invents a flawed male creature. In Part Two Polidori invents a flawed female creature. Almost everything between the end of Part One and the arctic climax could have been snipped out with little loss.Not a badly done movie, though. It's not trashy and it's not insulting. It's just without much significance. Worth seeing once.

kmcnelis I saw this movie when I was young and it made a great impression on me. I have been searching for this movie for years. I had remembered seeing a Frankenstein movie with James Mason in it. I had stayed up late at night on two different weekends, since it was such a long movie. I had asked different people at movie stores a few times, but no one could help me find this movie. I was so disappointed.I was so excited when I found this website and did a search on James Mason and finally found this movie. I have always enjoyed James Mason in movies, and am so happy to finally find one of my favorite movies with him! He was truly a great actor and was able to contribute much to film. Thank you!