CountVladDracula
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.
MARIO GAUCI
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).
Henry Kujawa
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.
