Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Michael_Elliott Frankenstein (1984) ** (out of 4)Elizabeth (Carrie Fisher) becomes worried that her fiancé Victor Frankenstein (Robert Powell) is spending too much time with his experiments. It turns out he's creating a human (David Warner) out of body parts and trying to bring it back to life.This made-for-television British film isn't exactly the best version of the story that you're going to see but it does feature a nice cast as well as a couple good scenes that make it tolerable. At the same time, there's no question that there's not enough here to make it worth watching unless you're like me and want to see every version of the story out there.There are some major issues with the film with the biggest being the fact that the direction is rather lackluster and there's just no style or energy to the picture. The movie is about as laid back as you can get and it doesn't help that it moves at a very slow pace. Even at just 73-minutes the movie drags in spots and there's no question that it needed a lot more life.I thought Powell was rather bland as Frankenstein and Fisher is even worse as Elizabeth. She doesn't even try for an accent and she just wasn't right for the part. John Gielgud appears briefly as the blind hermit but this scene just doesn't have much of an impact. Warner was good as the monster and he's certainly one of the highlights of the picture.I did find the ending to be good and there's a great sequence where the monster confronts his maker and asks questions about why he's the way he is. This scene was beautifully done and one wishes the rest of the picture had the magic of this scene.

MARIO GAUCI Mary Shelley's horror perennial has attracted numerous talents to it over the years: this one is no exception, but the end result is largely unsatisfying and oddly forgettable! Robert Powell and David Warner (as creator and creature respectively) complement each other quite well, especially in their thoughtful (as opposed to physical) final confrontation. The latter's burnt look (while not fitted with bolts in the sides of his neck a' la the classic monster make-up, he is still brought to life via electrical charges) seems to be derived from Christopher Lee's messy visage in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), while also looking forward to Robert De Niro's in MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1994). Carrie Fisher feels out-of-place here as Elizabeth, John Gielgud is wasted as the blind hermit, and Edward Judd turns up in yet another unrecognizable character role as a procurer of Frankenstein's specimens. The essence of the tale is there, to be sure (in spite of the low-key approach)…though, at a mere 73 minutes, it comes off as rushed – with the film's visuals also proving unappetizingly drab!

Hessian499 This British version of Frankenstein suffers from a low budget, and it shows its lack of funding at times, but is actually not a bad movie. It does have the atmosphere of a TV movie, so it is somewhat hard to compare it to other film versions of the Frankenstein story. The makeup on the monster is rather hideous, but looks like something a novice could apply. For a low budget film, it does have great sets and period costumes. Carrie Fisher has less of a role than she is billed for but is still quite pretty and charming in this film (she does a good British accent for a native Californian). All in all, this version of Frankenstein is not nearly the classic the 1931 version was, but is entertaining and worth watching.

peacham Robert Powell is convincing as Victor Frankenstein,bringing out all the subteties that are needed to make the role sympathetic. Carrie Fisher is charming and pretty as Elizabeth, Victor's bride, and David Warner evokes sympathy as the creature. its also nice to see Sir John Gielgud as the blind man, he gives a wonderfully understated performance. What the film lack is the novel's great ending. victor destroys the lab killing himself and the creature in this film. the novel of course has him track the creature through the north pole, perishing in the attempt. The lack of budget is, I am sure what prevented them from filming the novels ending. For a small budget however, it was a well done film.