ThiefHott Too much of everything

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

bkoganbing The indelible image of Frankenstein's monster was created by Boris Karloff in the classic Frankenstein film from Universal in the early talkie days. That square head, those bolts protruding from the neck and that inarticulate rage set the standard for the creature in dozens of films thereafter.In Frankenstein: The True Story we get a different slant on the creation. Dr. Victor Frankenstein is taken on as a protege by Dr. David McCallum who is experimenting with the origin of life and reviving the dead. McCallum is killed but Whiting takes the experiment over and with some of the same bizarre electronics via a lightning storm brings his creature to life and he looks a whole lot like Michael Sarrazin.Sarrazin is certainly a kind of Frankenstein monster that we hadn't seen before. But he's a failed experiment and he begins to deteriorate as dead bodies are prone to do.The film follows the basic plot of both the original Frankenstein and the Bride Of Frankenstein with Jane Seymour a girl killed in an accident brought back to life by another scientist James Mason who has the best role in the piece. He's a mad scientist, but he's one with real ambitions for Seymour. Let's say it ain't love a first sight for Sarrazin and Seymour. You have to see what happens to Seymour at a society ball.Both acting knights Ralph Richardson as the blind fiddler and John Gielgud as a constable are in this as well. This is also Michael Wilding's farewell film as the father of Nicola Paggett who is Whiting's fiance.The kind of talent in the cast of this film makes it a winner. This one is different and if you are a fan of James Mason you should not miss this.

Rainey Dawn I remember seeing this one years and years ago... Michael Sarrazin as The Creature is what rang a bell with me. I just briefed back over the film to write something about it here.It's an okay twist to the tale where The Creature looks like a normal man but slowly starts decaying away. I have to agree with others, this idea is just the opposite of what the story is about: The Creature/Monster is LIVING so it all of his tissues, which means he his flesh will not rot away.The movie is an okay, drawn out version that is barely satisfactory in the end. As far as the actors go, they are all good!! It's not the acting or anything else that is the problem it's the scripted story - the way it plays out that is a problem. If The Creature was not decaying then the film would be a heck of a lot better.4/10

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great movie. It has to be one of the best horror movies ever. Because it is best on one of the best horror books ever. The 1931 version is better. The original Frankenstein is really a silent movie from 1910. It not a very good movie. So really this is a great deal better then the original Frankenstein. I am some who enjoys movies more then books. I have read book. This is better. It is very scary. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie has a great story line. This movie also has great acting. This movie also has great special effects. It a very well made movie. It is a must see. It is very intense. It is a great movie.

nlights I was so pleased and surprised when I saw the DVD of this film for rent recently. I originally saw it on TV back in '73 (I was about 8) and it has stayed with (haunted?) me every since. A number of people have posted about how it made such an impression on them at the time, and I am certainly in that camp. Judging by other comments, it would seem that the only audience that actually watched the whole thing was between the ages of 5 and 10 :}.Anyway, watching it again last night with much more seasoned eyes, I was able to appreciate so many more aspects of this very well done film. While not a direct interpretation of the novel, it is certainly among the top three film versions of the story. It's not what you would call action packed but surprisingly, clocking in at around 3 hours, doesn't drag either, due to a tight script.It would have benifited from more music throughout as it carries a very sparse score. Guess it wasn't in the budget. In this release there was a very crucial scene which didn't match my memory, and I've come to find out that it had been edited. It was a somewhat gory scene but for crying out loud, it was on TV in '73! And we couldn't put it on the DVD now?? I don't get it. Other than those couple of points, it really is a somewhat forgotten classic.