AstroBoy Online Forums

I just watched Frankenstein Unbound, & this was a real weird one. Involving a modern scientist, time travel, Both Mary Wolstoncraft (Shelly) and her friends Lord Byron & of course Shelly, & major characters from the novel. It makes that famous book a part fiction, part history, as events unfold and inspire the story that she had yet to write.

One thing it did correctly, was its telling of the Frankenstein story, at least up to a point. Frankenstein's maid is accused of murdering his son, whom the monster killed. However, despite dead sheep in various pastures, its existence is largely unknown, & its true nature is wholly unknown. She is hanged for the murder (presumed guilty until proven otherwise was the standard), despite the modern scientist's attempts to save her. Frankenstein is correctly portrayed as letting her die rather than reveal the monster's existence, but having read the novel, I recall he was rather upset about it, because she was loved as a member of his family. This love & dilemma was not depicted in the film. Anyway, after the hanging, things became really weird, and rather amusing because of it.

I have seen the late great Peter (Gov. Tarkin of Star Wars) Cushing play various roles of mad scientists, including Dr. Frankenstein's son or grandson, who, of course, resurrects the monster. I prefer his & other classic horror actors' portrayal of mad scientists to the guy who played the scientist's part here. The character of Dr. F was rather aloof and indifferent to anyone other than his fiancee and monster in this film, and I thought was rather lacking in emotion as well.

There has yet to be a version of frankenstein put on film that I consider even remotely as high caliber as the book. It is the ONLY book I have ever read that made me actually feel all creeped out and uncomfortable. Its close to genius work imo.

Frankenstein: The True Story is to date my favorite "interpretation" on celuloid, however The Bride was an amazing movie.

Frankenstein unbound was a bit of a strange one. Unline you I thought Raul Julia was magnificient in his sleeping thru this role. It was proof that even when he made "feed the kids" movies he was still an impressive actor. The rest of the movie was really .. I want to say "Pseudo intellectual", but I am not quite sure that is a good fit. Its as if it wanted you to think about real world ramifications of the greyness between reality and fiction or something.. but I did not quite get what it was trying to say. It really was.. well.. Wierd.

I did like the movie, and would see it again if I found it.. but its far from "good" imo. I do remember being really impressed with the design of the monsters tho. THey has like 4 thumbs and stuff didn't they? As U can probably tell by now, it has been many years since I have seen this.

I always think of this movie when an IGOR turns up in a diskworld book. for some reason IGOR (all of them) reminds me of the monsters from this movie. I will need to see the movie again tho to see why I make the connection. Probably the 4 thumbs thing, or something.

There were a few more things accurate to the novel in Frankenstein: The True Story, but like the so-called Bram Stoker's Dracula, there was also a good bit of embellishment and more than a few omissions of details, despite the titles that promise the 'real' thing. Of course condensing a 300+ page novel down to a 90 minute film requires more than a few ommissions. But, unless I am mistaken, Frankenstein was only about 200 pages.

Yep. That is why I referred to it as my favorite "Interpretation", not the most accurate version of the book on film. It was also a mini-series, not a movie. It ran over two nights on TV, and with the comercials edited out had a running time of about 3 hours. I believe that "The true story" in the title was not meant to be translated as this is just like the book but more along the idea of this is the most realistic telling of the tale. THey left out the big drama and the flashy direction and told it almost as if it was, in fact, a true story. Not a faithful re-creation of the book.

The most loyal interpretation of the book on caluloid was the version with Patric Bergen in it. It tried REALLY had to take the essence from the book and make it watchable, but in the end it still was too self conscience of "Will people like the pretty pictures" rather than "Is this just how it happened in the book". CHanging a few DETAILS, but still staying with the majority of the STORYLINE or PLOT.

A few Years later the brilliant Kenneth Branagh made a version which, true to Branagh's usual style, was essentially a 'parrot' version of the book. Unfortunately because of this, it turned out really dull and unmotivated. It felt as if he was trying a little TOO hard to stick to the book in this one, so when he made the deveations they stood out like glowing neon and severed any real connection to an audience that was familliar with the book. Unfortunately it was also really quite dull and lifeless as well, so those not familliar with what it was attempting with its relation to Mary Shelley's version would have been rather bored and distracted. This was particularly dissappointing for me, as I am a rather large and loyal fan for Branagh, but he was was not up to his usual high standards here.

If you are looking for one of the greatest, darkest, briliantly funny movies directly made from reference to the original story, then look out for Frank Hollenlotter's "Frankenhooker". It is so outrageously trashy that there is no way you could not enjoy it for its extreeme campyness and honest B-Grade appeal. I always recomment Hollenlotters works. THe guy was so twisted and has such a great sence of making movies so perfectly terrible that he has got to be one of the most trustworthy movies makers out there. You KNOW what sort of movies he makes, so you KNOW EXACTLY what to expect, and you get Exactly that every time. He will never let you and your expectations down. He makes the movies for his audience and for no other reason.

i am bored

.B
.O
.R
.E
.D
....B
....O
....R
....E
....D
.......B
.......O
.......R
.......E
.......D
....B
....O
....R
....E
....D
.B
.O
.R
.E
.D

Originally posted by AstroLover@Dec 13 2004, 06:41 PM
i am bored

So if you are bored, you might also consider not to read this

:wacko:
Why would Andy Warhol and his New York faction do this?
Why bring up Frankenstein and make no mention? U-R-Nutzzzzz.