IMDb > Frankenstein Unbound (1990) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Frankenstein Unbound
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Frankenstein Unbound More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 51 reviews in total 

19 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

One of my favorites !

10/10
Author: JoeKuul3 from Long Island, New York, USA
10 August 2004

I really like this movie and can't understand why some people seem to enjoy trashing it and picking apart every little detail. Haven't they seen any of Corman's old films? Were they expecting some kind of masterpiece this time around?

That said, I thought that the "double opposable thumb" idea was excellent - seems like a plausible next evolutionary step.

The talking car was AWESOME! It's MUCH better than K.I.T.T. from Knightrider. I especially like the part when he goes into the past and the car is checking for satellites and radio stations, and all the cool graphics come up as the car reports that it can't find any types of links to modern society. It really made me think, "Woah! How would a person from the year 2004 deal with that situation?" Cell phone doesn't work, no payphones around, no phones of ANY kind, no Television or radio, none of the modern conveniences that we take for granted these days...

I love SciFi, futuristicky kinda stuff. So the ending (although somewhat confusing) was also enjoyable to me. If you like time-travel type Sci-Fi movies, I would definitely recommend this movie to you.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, actually decent enough, considering the theme

6/10
Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark
17 July 2004

I have to admit, I enjoyed this film, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. This is only the second Roger Corman film I've seen so far, and therefore I can only really compare it to the other film I saw by him, The Terror. I can clearly recognize the directing style, and basic film-making style, but I must say that this is better than The Terror. The plot is pretty good, and fairly interesting, and more original than most other films dealing with Frankenstein. It has a decent enough pace; I wasn't bored for the 90 minutes it lasted. The script is fairly good too, a good twist on the original Frankenstein story, though I guess some fans of the original story wouldn't like the various changes. The acting is good enough, both John Hurt and Raul Julia gives pretty good performances, and the rest of the cast is decent. The characters are fairly well-written and credible. The film has a fairly bad name, it seems; yes, the monster does look more like the result of genetic mutation or something similar, rather than a creature built together by human bodies, and, arguably, the film has several violent scenes that seem to be there mainly to add violence rather than substance to the film, but apart from that, the film is pretty good, at least worth a watch, if only one watch. The effects are decent enough, at least for a film from 1990. The makeup effects and such were also pretty good, I must say that the monster's face, especially the eyes, did send a chill through my spine, the first time he was shown. I liked the various science fiction aspects of the film, and the social commentary was very good, too. The ending was a little weird, but it was a fairly good climax. All in all, a decent enough science fiction/horror drama, and worth one watch, if you can catch it for free. I recommend it to fans of Roger Corman and open-minded fans of Frankenstein and/or horror films in general; just be prepared that it won't be an incredible or very memorable film, just an entertaining 90 minutes, if you're into violent movies without any real purpose. 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

One of my favorites

10/10
Author: Jeff V from United States
15 June 2006

NO SPOILERS If you like a good late night, popcorn munching lights-out, old fashioned horror movie, then this is your ticket. But wait; there's a bonus. It has a great sci-fi twist. I've shown this to friends and recommended it to people, and they are never disappointed. Spend a couple of bucks and take a chance. It's rare that a movie puts a fresh twist on an old story and does it so well. Great scenic mood and acting; although the final scene seems low budget; it's going for stark, and overdoes it a bit.

I pick up this movie about once every 5-6 years and look forward to it every time. The monster is unique to the Frankentein genre, but it also seems much more accurate to what a madman's medical science would produce. There's no over the top screaming or "It's aliiiive" scenes. No, it is smart, and realistic.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Not bad

8/10
Author: sgt619-1 from MI
24 November 2002

I first saw this little known early ninties title on HBO not long after its release. I must say I found it to be quite memorable, with excellent performances by John Hurt and Raul Julia as well as Bridget Fonda. I love the 1800 settings in Geneva (actually filmed in Italy) and the way Hurt slipped back in time and found where he was. (according to his car "we are alone") so cool. The monster was real creepy and he actually talks. All in all, a very good movie I highly recommend. As of this writing, its not out on DVD that I am aware of but if it does come out, it will definately be worthy of my collection.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Nice comeback

Author: Tin Man-5 from Auke Bay, Alaska
25 June 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Not of This Earth" and "The Terror," low budget films from the fifties and sixties, are what Roger Corman has always been best known for. This was his first film in nearly twenty years, and he does a nice job with it, surprisingly. Based on the novel by fantasy/sci-fi author Brian W. Aldess, this film works because it takes the classic horror story and makes it relevant in modern times. A scientist named Joe Bodenland creates a nuclear device which causes much destruction, and some of the effects of it causes him to blast back through time to another land in which Mary Shelley and Dr. Frankenstein and his creature co-exist. He is repulsed at Dr. Frankenstein's actions, but when he tries to put a stop to them, he is stopped by his own hypocrisy. For both men have created something that has caused great destruction upon the earth.

It's talky and philosophical, but on the other hand, so was the Shelley book, and this film follows in the spirit of the classic novel. John Hurt gives a stunning performance as Joe, especially at the end, when he and the Creature are blasted far into another time that has been destroyed. We soon learn that this chaos and disorder is a result of his nuclear device, and when Joe realizes his "monster" has destroyed the whole world, he looks at the Creature, who is demanding to know his identity, and says, "I am....Frankenstein." Hurt does a nice job in this role.

The late Raul Julia has little to do as Dr. Frankenstein besides look demented and act insane, and he does a good job, as usual. Nick Brimble as the Creature also lends support, portraying the part cleverly....This monster believes all people on the earth are creations of Dr. Frankenstein, so what difference does it make whether or not he kills them? It's sort of innocence combined with rage and ignorance. Not since Karloff as the Creature appeared so frightening. Bridget Fonda and Jason Patric also do well as Mary Shelley and Lord Byron, who appear sort of as Joe's consciences.

The ending is also depressingly disturbing, and it will leave you thinking. All in all, Corman directs with crispness and cunning that he lacked in his earlier, low-budgeted films. Perhaps he was a nineties director who was born a generation too early. At any rate, he does fine here, and if you're looking for a nice horror film that will challenge you as well as frighten you, give this one a try.

*** out of ****

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Roger Cormans Masterpiece (In My Opinion)

9/10
Author: CMRKeyboadist from Sleesburg, VA.
10 January 2007

Frankenstein Unbound is one of those movies that is almost impossible to categorize. Part horror, part science fiction, part fantasy, and part comedy. And what is even more interesting is the cast of all stars. Roger Corman is able to put all of these together to form a truly mesmerizing film that you will never forget.

It is in the future. John Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a slightly mad scientist who has developed a weapon for the government that harness's the power of a black hole. In the process, he has inadvertently created a worm hole that might destroy the world. On his way home from work, Buchanan is sucked into the hole and sent back in time to Europe 1812. It is here he meets Victor Frankenstein (played wonderfully by Raul Julia) and discovers that the story of Frankenstein's Monster is in fact a true story.

I believe what makes this movie so much fun is that as serious as the story appears to take itself it is actually rather humorous. Most of the scenes with the Monster in them are actually laugh out loud funny. There are a few scenes with the monster that just need to be seen to be fully understood as most of the movie is quite a bleak comedy. The ending to the movie is truly one of the bleakest endings I have ever seen.

For a Roger Corman film this is really well done. John Hurt and Raul Julia really compliment each other in this movie. It is too bad that Bridget Fonda and Jason Patric didn't have bigger roles in the movie as their characters are fascinating as well.

Well, I certainly enjoyed this film. I have watched it countless times throughout the years and I still have not grown tired of it. For me, truly a timeless film that I will watch many more times. 9/10

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

roger Corman returns as director

8/10
Author: vampi1960 from United States
29 October 2006

as a die hard Gothic horror movie fan i try to watch all the versions of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein,some great some really bad.when i heard that roger corman was going to direct this i was excited,roger corman has'nt directed a movie in a very long time so i knew this was going to be quite special.with Raul Julia,john hurt,Bridgett Fonda,and Jason Patric in the cast,its a big budget production,the story is kind of bizarre,what if Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was based on a true story? well this kind hearted but well meaning mad scientist(hurt)gets sent back to the past with his futuristic talking car(like kit from knight-rider)and meets Mary Shelly(Fonda)and Dr Frankenstein(Julia)and his monster(nick brimble)this movie was based on the novel of the same name.its got a hauntingly good score,everything works,i liked Frankenstein unbound,i believe Mary Shelly would be proud.I'm glad roger corman directed this,he did a great job.8 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Unbound metaphors

10/10
Author: hughjoe from United States
17 August 2011

This is fun B-Movie that follows the infinite that science can unleash. It has all the matinée and B-movie markings but don't let that eclipse the philosophy of a wise tale: Science Unbound will not be controlled by its maker, the scientist like a parent or artist can not keep a leash on its creation. For a great review of the film check out: "Sight & Sound" International Film Quarterly. Winter. 1990/91. Volume 60 No 1. Richard Combs article breaks down the review into four parts: 1.The Atom, New & Improved 2.There are parts of me in all my films. But which parts? 3. There are no eyes in the Unconscious 4. Who is God maybe?

But a lot of people don't seem to care for this film, so be your own judge. I would rather not judge and just enjoy a story about Frankenstein that is way more entertaining than a lot of highly ranked movies on this database.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Unbound to Glory

8/10
Author: Charles Tatum from North Dakota
17 June 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Roger Corman, who has not produced a decent film in the last

fifteen years, must have been saving up all his creative forces for

this entertaining bit of science fiction-horror.

John Hurt plays a scientist in 2031 who is working on a new

weapon for the government that implodes the enemy and makes

them disappear, usually through a time slip into another time. Hurt

himself is sucked in back to 1831, and meets Dr. Frankenstein,

who is mourning the loss of his younger brother. The brother was

killed by the Monster, but an innocent girl is blamed and plans are

made to execute her. Hurt discovers Mary Godwin (soon to be Mary

Shelley) and enlists her aid in helping the girl. The girl is executed

despite their efforts, and Hurt meets up with Lord Byron and Percy

Shelley, while trying to stop the Monster from killing again.

Eventually, Hurt decides to stop Frankenstein using the very

technology that sent him to 1831 in the first place.

John Hurt is a revelation here in a leading role. Stripped of the

weird characters he is too often asked to play, he comes across

as completely normal and very good. Bridget Fonda is also good

as Mary Godwin. Raul Julia makes a great Dr. Frankenstein,

eschewing the hysterics of past mad doctors. Michael Hutchence

as Shelley and Jason Patric as Byron are rather funny as the

nineteenth century's versions of free loving hippies. Their scenes

are too few.

This was Corman's first directorial effort in twenty some odd years,

but he has a very good touch with the camera. The special effects,

especially involving the timeslip cloud, are impressive without

seeming cheap. The ending does get a little too allegorical, and

the effects inside the future city's brain do look cheap, but the

whole film was a positive experience. Frankenstein's Monster here

is one of the scariest of all time. The stitched eyeballs are gross,

and his appearance is genuinely hideous. He can speak, no

mumbling and shuffling here. I would put this film on par with

"Time After Time" and "Somewhere in Time," two other films that

used their stories to compel the plot forward, not a bunch of

special effects.

I recommend "Frankenstein Unbound" to both science fiction and

horror fans.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, strong gore,

and sexual references.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

"Meet.... my monster!"

6/10
Author: classicsoncall from United States
3 June 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Trying to deal with time travel stories often makes my head hurt, because it sets up a whole set of 'what if' scenarios. For example, when Dr. Buchanan (John Hurt) produces Mary Shelley's (Bridget Fonda) book "Frankenstein - or, The Modern Prometheus", wouldn't natural curiosity have compelled her to read the story she hadn't written yet? And in doing so, wouldn't she have changed certain parts of the story, or even added the character of Dr. Buchanan into it? One's mind reels at the possibilities.

Focusing on that aspect of "Frankenstein Unbound" would have been provocative enough, but the film gets deeper into science fiction territory with Buchanan's particle beam weapon and it's side effects of missing persons, time slips and weather disturbances. The number of throwaway scenes that did nothing to propel the story forward surprised me, starting with that warrior on horseback that appeared when the youngsters were burying the outmoded bicycle. Buchanan himself hallucinates a couple of dream sequences that don't connect to anything and have no bearing on what eventually happens.

Dr. Frankenstein (Raul Julia) is an interesting character. Disturbed and protective of his creation at the same time, it's ironic that he takes no responsibility in the face of an innocent girl's death by hanging for the murder of his younger brother. To him, his only rationalization can be - "I'm a scientist, I cannot sin..."

Probably a plus, the film doesn't dwell on the creation of The Monster, he's certainly creepy enough without appearing to be a patch job of multiple bodies; to this viewer he calls to mind my vision of the Swamp Thing. Ironically, the transformation of Elizabeth into the Bride of Frankenstein is visually stunning and a closer tribute to the original in her brief appearance.

Ultimately though, it seems the film stumbled around to come up with an appropriate ending and I'm not so sure that was achieved. The character of Buchanan was just as much a villain as Frankenstein and The Monster itself, so having him wend his way far off to the futuristic city just left me with question marks. Perhaps that was meant to be his punishment, along with making him walk instead of taking his trusty talking carriage.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history