Terror of Frankenstein

Forget the hype about MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1993) and FRANKENSTEIN THE TRUE STORY (1974) being the most faithful versions. This neglected Swedish-Irish co-production is still the only movie that's a sincere attempt to accurately portray the characters, events and prevailing mood of Mary Shelley's novel. In fact, it's a lot closer to the original story than any of the other movie versions. Victor Frankenstein (the perfectly cast Leon Vitali) is presented as an intense, moody, headstrong, somewhat neurotic medical student whose tunnel-visioned sense of righteousness is shattered when he sees his Monster awaken for the first time and suddenly feels only horror. As in the book, Victor is completely unable to face the consequences of his experiment, trying at first to convince himself that he must have dreamed the whole thing and then simply running away from it all and pretending nothing ever happened. It isn't that easy for the Monster (Per Oscarsson), who is also much nearer to Shelley's concept of the character than in most movies. Instead of a growling robotic killer, Oscarsson's Monster is an accurate portrayal of the confused, desperate and reasonably intelligent creature described in the novel. He only becomes a hateful, bitter, resentful fiend after he's had plenty of time to think about who and what he is. Oscarsson is one of the best Frankenstein Monsters in movie history in terms of performance, but he has to work hard to overcome the entry-level monster makeup he wears. There are no bloody stitches, neck bolts or misshapen features here, and one wishes they had made his appearance a little more monstrous. His main physical shortcomings are black lips, red-rimmed eyes and a sallow complexion, making it seem more likely that the 'normal' people he meets would view him as a sick person in need of medical attention instead of reacting with fear and total revulsion when they see him. We learn almost nothing of the nature of Frankenstein's experiments in this telling, which eschews most of the medical/surgical/electrical details common in movies. Again, that's following the original text's example, as very little in the way of scientific detail was discussed in the book. About the only element of the Monster's creation that will be familiar to movie audiences is the fact that Frankenstein uses a kite to attract a bolt of lightning to infuse his creation with life. The creation scene, usually the highpoint of Frankenstein movies, is handled in a strangely offhand, nonchalant manner here. It's mostly offscreen and happens very quickly with hardly any buildup. Many passages have very little dialogue and even background music is used sparingly, creating an oddly sedate atmosphere. The period setting and scenery are superb and help to ensure that even the slow parts are watchable. Many of the indoor scenes have a nicely spooky, dramatically shadowy lighting scheme, one of this (very literal) film's few concessions to gothic horror tradition. Don't expect pulse-pounding action or spectacular visual effects, but if you'd like to experience a thoughtful, authentic looking, well-acted version of the classic tale that faithfully follows the source material and treats it respectfully, this is definitely worth watching. It's also known as VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and it was released in the U. S. by Independent-International, even though it's a far cry from their usual horror fare (BRAIN OF BLOOD, DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS, etc.).

Greetings and salutations, and welcome to my review of 1977s Terror Of Frankenstein.

Before I get into the review, here are my ratings for the movie.

The story gets 1.5 out of 2: The Direction a 1.5: The Pacing receives a 1.5: While the Performances get 1.5: And my Enjoyment level earns a 1.5 out of 2: Terror Of Frankenstein, therefore, receives a total of 7.5 out of 10.

To begin with, I'm getting controversial: Terror Of Frankenstein is one of my favourite adaptations of the Mary Shelley story. I can see I may be in the minority here on IMDb. Consequently, can I back up my statement? Well, let's see.

Writers, Calvin and Yvonne Floyd stay true to Shelley's classic in story, motivation, and atmosphere. There's a very tangible dark and depressing feel to this creation. I appreciate the way we comprehend nothing about Frankenstein's monster. In previous adaptations, the scriptwriters give reasons for the reanimated man's evilness. But here, the Floyd's don't offer any reason because there is no evident reason. In all truth, he sees himself as a monster because the people around him regard him as such. When in all actuality, he's a newborn man struggling to grow and learn. His creator Frankenstein is a coward and runs from his creation, hoping he's dead or just a fever dream. Driven by a deep and unearthly urge, his creation travels through the county, country, and the world, searching for his master. What he uncovers is a man with a family who loves him and who he loves back. Why can't the man who fathered him offer him similar consideration? When he realises this will never happen, he strikes a deal with Frankenstein; construct a woman for him, and they will live out their days away from humankind. Regrettably, Frankenstein reneges on his deal. Leaving his creation to adopt the attitude of, if you want a monster, then you get a monster. So begin the slaughters.

Calvin Floyd also directed this film and maintained the boundaries of his emotional story. Terror of Frankenstein is not a fast and glorified and pretty Hollywood picture. Floyd sets the pace to slow and moody, which works well to reveal the creature at his best. He throws in some wintry vistas that depict the loneliness and desolation, not only of the surrounding area but of Frankenstein and his creation.

There are times when the tempo picks up a little; these are principally around the action sequences. Regrettably, they don't add much excitement. It's a pleasing aspect of the tale because it's not about excitation but the characters and their journeys. Floyd is a dab hand at using natural lighting and dark shadows to their best advantage. The effect of the lighting doubles due to his composition skill. Terror of Frankenstein is a perfectly constructed piece of filmmaking, and Floyd should be rightly proud of it.

The lack of special effects may cause people to place this film on ice. But remember, this isn't an FX-flick. The creature himself is nothing but Per Oscarsson in whiteish make-up and a slightly droopy eye. This creation is a reanimated corpse and not a cross-stitched mess of body parts with a damaged brain. It's Oscarsson who has to develop the audience's belief in the creations persona. He achieves this superbly. He gives the creature an air of melancholy, sadness, loss, and loneliness. I perceived myself supporting him more than Frankenstein.

Leon Vitali portrays Frankenstein and delivers a decent rendition of the driven genius. You can see Frankenstein considers interests most beneficial to humanity. Regrettably, it's his drive that takes his final experiment too far. Realising his mistake, he runs away like a coward, only to later find his backbone and hunt down his creation. Vitali portrays all these emotions superbly.

I would gladly recommend this version of Mary Shelley's story for everyone to watch. You have to bear in mind that the film is slow. The leisurely pace may not be for everyone: There's no bare-chested star swinging through the rafters, which isn't a terrible thing to do without. I have watched my share of boring films, and this is not one of them. Not once did my attention shift from the screen. Granted, there are some thing's that could have been handled better, like Frankenstein and Elizabeth's romance, which needed more romance. And a few scenes needed more suspense to work perfectly. These moments are few, though.

Take Care & Stay Well.

Jump on your dog sledge and mush your way on over to my Absolute Horror, The Final Frontier, and Obsidian Dreams lists to see where Frankenstein's creation caught up with his creator.

1976's "Terror of Frankenstein," more commonly known under original title "Victor Frankenstein," does indeed focus more on the scientist, played as a medical student by 27 year old Leon Vitali, though the accolades clearly belong to Swedish actor Per Oscarsson as The Monster. Director Calvin Floyd had already done the feature length documentary "In Search of Dracula," in which Christopher Lee doubled as both narrator and real life Vlad Tepes, so his take on Mary Shelley purported to be at least as faithful to its literary source as Michael Sarrazin's "Frankenstein: The True Story," both versions concluding in the Arctic wasteland. Frankenstein shares his tale of woe with the captain of a ship caught in the ice, how his obsession with conquering death meant a desire to find the secret of life. His education required months away from his family in Geneva, experimenting on animals until he found a suitable human body to meet his goal; horrified at the sight of his newborn creation, Victor abandons his ambitions to return home, unaware that The Monster will follow to seek revenge for a lifetime of loneliness. Coming upon Victor's younger brother, its attempt to reach out for a potential friend is dashed once he learns the boy's identity, leaving the corpse in the snow to remind Frankenstein of the wrong he had committed. The Monster reveals himself to his creator to explain how he learned to speak and reason, demanding a mate to ease his burden in solitude far away from humanity. Victor's inability to follow through proves the final straw for his embittered antagonist: "I will be with you on your wedding night." On location shooting in Ireland does not compensate for an excruciatingly slow pace, a full half hour buildup to Per Oscarsson's first appearance, merely the barebones of Shelley's story to be played out for another hour in entirely predictable fashion. This was Vitali's only starring role (just his third feature film), his performance little different from the insufferable Lord Bullingdon in Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon," a wholly weak central character that utterly fails to engage, quick to give up at the first sign of trouble, a literal harbinger of death to all his loved ones. Per Oscarsson uses his great height and minimal makeup to ably portray Shelley's creature as it was on the printed page, soft spoken, less verbose but more effective. His features are easily visible, hardly a fearsome visage with his blackened lips and eager to please demeanor, not as sympathetic as past Monsters but still fascinating. Floyd's double bill of Frankenstein and Dracula both found US release through Al Adamson's Independent-International, likely less successful at the box office as Paul Naschy titles "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" or "Night of the Howling Beast." Its small cast and obvious low budget need not be a detriment, Per Oscarsson offering the only reason to view this forgotten version of an oft told tale, sadly yet aptly named for its defeatist protagonist.

Though it's been a number of years since I've seen this movie, it still leaves an impression as the best and most faithful adaption of Mary Shelley's wonderful book. The two leads were very well cast. It's a shame no one else I know has seen it. This film is way better than Branagh's "rock and roll" version (even though DeNiro was great as the monster).

This very sober and (comparatively speaking) faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel stints on the usual horror aspects, but isn't that compelling on subtler psychological or dramatic terms to compensate. Per Oscarsson, cast as the re-animated "monster," is a fine actor who'd been extraordinary in Swedish classics like "Hunger." But even though the movie spends more time detailing the monster's cruel education in "humanity" than most, he still isn't allowed the depth needed to give a fully dimensionalized performance. (It doesn't help that Per isn't much tricked-out in makeup terms beyond black lipstick, and is forced to speak phonetic English.) Plus the desired pathos falls short, not to mention the expected suspense or shock value this film utterly fails to achieve. Nonetheless, it's watchable as a rare serious stab at addressing the novel rather than simply exploiting its cinematic heritage. The scenery is spectacular, the performances decent, the direction intelligently measured if lacking real atmosphere or excitement. I appreciated it--just wish it were better.