House of Frankenstein (1997) User Reviews

Entertaining

[leftoverbot · 6/10 · 20 September 2008]

People here were a bit harsh here at IMDb (imagine!). This movie is not near as bad as some would say. I can't really get into made for TV movies, mini-series or even drama series. That being said, this was mildly entertaining. I watched the whole thing just now on Chiller's lame excuse for a horror channel and it took me 4 hours that could have been better spent. I am not saying that this is a masterpiece (I rated it a 6) but if you are like me and come here to IMDb to check out a movie before watching it - don't listen to the naysayers. It was pretty decent. The costumes were not that bad. The head vamp's rubbery ears I could get past though his wings looked like fabric instead of living tissue. Ah well, the story was good and Teri Polo may be the hottest woman alive. Frank was a bit goofy looking but I think they were trying to make him look less fantastic to aid in everyone's disbelief. This may not have been worth 4 hours but if we could get a DVD version without commercials it would definitely be worth the watch.

"So, who's interior decorator?"

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 1 June 2008]

While the sum of this admittedly comes out to about average, it is not without aspects worth noting. I haven't seen the original classics based on the books, nor the film called the same as this. A pretty good job is done of basing the characters on the novels, from what I know of them. The three creatures/types get a fairly decent amount of screen-time as well as development each. Some of the design is interesting, though there are definitely also areas of it where they cut corners. Lighting isn't bad. The effects vary, but some are well-done, remarkably so in several cases. I'm not sure if there are multiple versions of this, but for me, it lasted about two hours and forty minutes sans commercials, so about an hour and twenty per part. There is relatively well-done suspense in this. There is a lot of cheese and corn herein, as well, but hey, they can both be found in a nutritious meal, and some insist on some of either or both in their diet. The humor certainly has its moments, and it's mostly natural, seldom forced. The script is hit and miss, and it may break a rule or more. It does a reasonable job of updating the myths and such. The plot is fine. The pacing is, as well. The acting is a mixed bag. The cinematography and editing feature some inspired bits. This is genuinely scary at times. There is moderate violence and gore, but I didn't hear any language. I recommend this to fans of horror, and those into the monsters. Just be aware of what to expect. 5/10

great monster film

[exchronos · 22 May 2003]

This film was a great multi-monster film! For once, it doesn't have Dracula being the main vampire-or just one main werewolf. Peter Crombie does a great portrayal of Frankenstein's monster-this is probably the one of the best films portraying the monsters in modern times. The plot is unique, and the effects are refreshing. It carries the traditional love triangle well, and it lives up to the monster being an intelligent multi-dimensional character rather than a strangling figure who can't speak or barely think. It's an interesting movie that can entertain and keep you on the edge of your seat. It's occasionally played on the Sci-Fi channel if you ever want to watch it (that's the only channel I've seen it on after it first premiered).

Sincerely, Exchronos

WARNING! Don't waste your time on this one!

[maxcellus46 · 1/10 · 15 December 2005]

If you're looking for some cheap "scares", then go back to the original Universal horror flicks of the 1930's, 40's and 50's when at least in those days they had available good actors to play the parts. This "made for TV" version was a complete and total waste of time. When I first tuned into it, I just naturally assumed that it was going to be a continuation or "remake", and hopefully on the same standards, as the originals from years gone by. No way Jack! The acting, the story and direction, if you can call it that, are all null and void here. It's as if a high school drama club was attempting to put on a Halloween show and they had a total budget of $3.23. The lady news reporter is totally without the sympathy of Lon Chaney's "Larry Talbot" wolf man. The Frankenstein Monster in this is a joke that was rejected by the Three Stooges. And the "Dracula" character is someone who looks like he tried out for the "Godfather"...and obviously didn't get the part. What a stinko pic! This mess is not even up to "Ed Wood" standards. So what was Universal thinking of? Was this just some lame way of promoting their "Universal Studios" theme park in Florida? In the future, leave well enough alone.

Utterly dreadful

[S Gill · 1/10 · 22 January 2000]

What can you say about a production where the astute hero cop finally realizes his girlfriend is a werewolf when he catches her chasing rodents through the woods in her nightdress?

This film is hysterically funny, unfortunately I don't think this was the director's intention.

Similar to Kindred The Embraced

[Charmaine_Mitchell · 10/10 · 11 February 2002]

Anyone who liked Kindred The Embraced should like this mini-series. I found the themes to be somewhat similar and really enjoyed both shows. The acting and story line were very professional and interesting. I consider House of Frankenstein 1997 to be a 'keeper' and have waited impatiently for several years for it to be released to the public.

Scary and stylishly done

[Tin Man-5 · 25 September 1999]

If fiction's three deadliest predators of man (Frankenstein's Monster, vampires, and werewolves) were loosed upon modern L.A., what would happen? This well-done miniseries attempts to answer that question. The results are a pretty lively horror film, with excellent special effects, good makesup, and a terrific cast. I'm surprised they didn't send this one to the theaters...all three and a half hours of it. Hey....it could have passed as a horror film's "Titanic."

What really makes it work it the fact that they don't resurrect the traditional monsters of the old Universal films, but the actual literary beasts. The Frankensten Monster is straight from the book, against both humans and vampires in an effort to meet his own deadly agenda. The werewolves and vampires also closly follow their incarnations from ancient folklore, representing evil incarnate. Together, these three kings of Undead manage to make an exceptional made-for-TV effort. Just one question: Where was the Mummy's Curse?

*** out of ****

May be so bad it's good

[CountVladDracula · 10/10 · 14 September 2012]

I would like to recommend one of the worst TV mini-series ever made. It's not boring but it's very bad and easy to heckle. This may well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space of TV mini-series. It aired on NBC in 1997. It's called House of Frankenstein (not to be confused with the black and white movie of the same name). Sometimes titled House of Frankenstein '97.

There's a cliché detective named Coyle, a spunky female reporter (who gets turned into a werewolf and later cured by the stupidest method possible). And there's the most incompetent vampire / Dracula knock-off ever, a vampire named Crispin Grimes, who later gets revealed as being a fallen angel who... wants the real Frankenstein Monster to display in his night club and so he sends an expedition to find the Frankenstein Monster in the North Pole... Again, to DISPLAY HIM IN HIS NIGHT CLUB! C. C. H. Pounder plays a Van Helsing type of character who is constantly calling the police station to tell them that their serial killer that the newspapers call "The Raptor" is actually a vampire.

It's just so awe inspiring stupid it has to be a Nostalgia Critic episode.

This wasn't even something NBC did for Halloween. It aired in November of 1997. And never got a video release. But you can find the whole thing on Youtube.

The person who loaded it to Youtube broke it into Act 1 and Act 2 and each act is broken into about 9 pieces. It was originally a 2 part mini-series. And just about every 90s cliché and trope you can imagine is in it, to remind you that this isn't the version from 1944.

There are so many immense plot holes. Werewolfism can be cured by temporarily flatlining a werewolf, The Frankenstein Monster was found in the North Pole (like in Mary Shelley's novel) yet he has to learn to talk like the Universal Studios version even though he's obviously intelligent. All vampires are fallen angels... The supernatural community of this city follow Crispin Grimes even though he has to be the most incompetent demon / vampire ever! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JJjy9DTF-w It's so deliciously bad it reaches guilty pleasure levels. My favorite part is when the Frankenstein Monster out wits the vampire and his henchmen by letting them think they can hurt him with an electrical shock collar. "They were foolish to think electricity could hurt me." That was actually the most amusing moment in the whole thing. This is so awful it deserves a cult following.

Very entertaining

[Anewactor · 25 May 2003]

Saw the film and thought that it was fairly interesting. It was entertaining and kept relatively close to the mythos of the various characters involved (Vampire, Werewolf and Frankenstein's monster.) The special effects were okay and the makeup was okay as well, with a minor problem I had with Franstein's creature. The makeup for actor Peter Crombie I felt didn't convey the kind of 'fear' of what the monster should have. He looked more or less like an old wino or junkie with scars; Fairly harmless looking (aside from some metallic bolts on his forehead). If they were attempting to make the monster appear benign and non lethal, then they succeeded. Also, he should have appeared a bit taller I think. He seemd to be the same height as "Fernando", the semi blind character he befriends. (How tall is Pete Crombie anyway?) other than that, it's a pretty good film with enough chills to keep you on the edge of your seat.

For people who can enjoy nice, harmless monster fun

[supermaggie · 8/10 · 10 June 2016]

I do not shy away from fierce vampires like the ones in 30 days of night etc., but for a change it is nice to have some harmless fun with the classic monsters, so I enjoyed the movie a lot. It ain't too often that movies combine two or even three monster types (rather common nowadays in TV shows), and since I like them all, I do -once in a while- enjoy such gatherings. As Salinger wrote in The catcher in the rye: there is a time and a place for everything, so instead of bashing the fun young girls (and others) have when watching Twilight, people should be more tolerant for such HARMLESS fun, nobody is being harmed when people enjoy harmless monsters, it does not have to be the most perverse torture and blood spilling all the time. There is enough torture porn out there and these movies are quite high up in the blockbuster charts as well, so you Eli Roth-/...-fans go watch these and have young girls and other people enjoy the other kind of "scary" fun. Back to this movie: I wrote such a long intro because I think that this movie has a lot of good stuff (good actors, the obligatory police action, satisfying monster make-up/FX) so I cannot imagine why all the negative reviews, I can only imagine it is too harmless for the bashers, but they can choose other stuff instead. There is a time and movie for everybody. Go and enjoy.

"The creature is alive. Or should I say undead."

[Backlash007 · 28 April 2003]

I was surprised to see what a low rating this 4-hour mini got. I found House of Frankenstein '97 to be a very enjoyable waste of time, especially since I had never heard of it before. It's nothing too special, but I would definitely watch it again. I agree with an earlier reviewer that it had the same tone and feel of Kindred: The Embraced. The only flaw of the movie is that it displeases it's target audience. I think they may have forgotten who their target audience was entirely. Horror fans want HORROR!! Despite the fact that monsters are running around the big city, it's not really a horror movie as much as it is a cop drama. But it's an entertaining cop drama. Pasdar is great and he should work more. I've been a fan of his since Near Dark and his short-lived television show, Profit, was nothing less than amazing. The rest of the cast was fine with no one really standing out. The make-up is another story that can be summed up in two words: Greg Cannom. He seems to have recycled some of his work for Bram Stoker's Dracula, but dammit I don't care. It's great. And that's about all I can say about House of Frankenstein '97. I enjoyed this mini-series but I don't think it will ever find an audience. Hopefully it will locate its own niche.

"Assuming of course there is a God."

[QueenoftheGoons · 9/10 · 2 July 2021]

Yeah people are disappointed that the House of Frankenstein is a bar. But i always liked Frankie and the vampire was tolerable but oh sexhunk and a half Carsten Norgaard as the werewolf. It was on NBC and my aunt taped it in 1997. Then it was taped over. Can't find it on disc anywhere. I'd lvoe to watch it again. I liked the music, could have done without the chicks but hey that's me. I liked it.

Better than expected

[lt3074 · 2 May 2002]

When this two part mini-series was first advertised, I didn't know what to expect. Most made for TV horror movies are poorly written, and have cheap special effects. While the special effects left something to be desired, the writing, and performance of the actors in this movie were very good. There were a lot of parts that I felt weren't needed, but overall, it was good enough to keep my attention. I felt that the unnecessary parts (way too much time on the frankenstein monster) could have been cut out, and it would have been a great TV movie. Cut out the unnecessary (notice I didn't say bad) parts and give it a bigger budget, and it would have been a great movie for theaters.

Overall, it was a good, solid movie, that I would watch again.

Assuming of course there is a god

[QueenoftheGoons · 9/10 · 24 August 2020]

Watched it in 1997 and can't find it since but I know it by heart. I liked it, the vampire could have been sexier but his make up job was good. Hard to be believe Frankie is Crazy Joe Divola from Seinfeld. It a good one, until the monsters begin to die. And who can forget the infamous line; "Assuming of course there is a god."

A TRAVESTY

[mord39 · 2 October 2000]

MORD39 RATING: 0 (of ****)

I was happy to think that perhaps our old dear creatures from the wonderful Universal days would return in the nineties to breathe some life into the dead horror genre. Boy, was I mistaken.

HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1997) is dumb, comical, and a travesty. It does not deserve to bear the title of its classical 1944 counterpart.

Boy, is it over!