MartinHafer Wow...what was it about the mid-1970s that caused such a proliferation of Frankenstein films? Now I know that MANY such films about the monster have been made over the years--partly due to there being no need to pay royalties to make the story! But, in just a short period, at least three major Frankenstein films were made--Dan Curtis' "Frankenstein", "Frankenstein: The True Story" and this version, "Victor Frankenstein". This doesn't include minor Frankenstein films from the same period such as "Frankenstein All'Italiana" as well as comedies, such as "Young Frankenstein"! Wow. That's a lot 'o Frankenstein! "Victor Frankenstein" is a Swedish/Irish co-production, though it appears to have been made in English. I assume a few of the extras and minor characters were non-English speakers, but the main stars of the film sounded quite British.Unlike most Frankenstein stories, this one starts at the end! This sort of non-linear storytelling abounds in the movie--sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The Doctor is found on the ice by a ship--so I guess that he managed to survive the final confrontation with his creation that ends Mary Shelley's novel. On board, the crazy Doc tells the crew about his life and how he was able to create a living creature out of the dead. Considering most Frankenstein films never even mention the Arctic locale at the end of the novel, this film is decidedly closer to the book than the Universal films--though, I still must admit that despite this, the old Universal films are great fun.Much of Dr. Frankenstein's story shows the steps well before he begins creating a monster--making it a bit different than the average film. You see a few scenes in which he's working on animal dissections and a few animals are being tormented by him. While most of these scenes are not that explicit, they are still a bit hard for a sensitive person to take (such as seeing a cow about to be bludgeoned)--and I doubt if you'll be hearing representatives from PETA endorsing this version any time in the near future--though I am pretty sure they'd be okay with most Frankenstein films that show him experimenting on people as well as the human fetuses in jars (yuck!).As far as the actual process through which the monster is created, it's pretty obvious that this is a very low-budget production. While the film doesn't exactly look cheap, many of the usual special effects and electronic gizmos are notably absent--making this portion of the movie seem quite minimalistic. The production is apparently so poor that Dr. Frankenstein couldn't afford an assistant like Fritz or Igor to help him release his kites or steal body parts. And, unlike most Frankenstein films, this one looks more the creature was created in a barn or old house--not the typical old castle or mansion. None of this is bad, however, just different, as Shelley's story never actually talked about the creation process other than to say he used body parts. Suffice to say, this Frankenstein didn't seem like a rich Baron--more like a struggling student with a mountain of student loans to eventually repay! After the monster is created, the story bounces around--again, in a very non-linear fashion that I found annoying. I liked the way the film started, but later this style really was disconcerting. Again and again, I thought the film forgot important parts of the book--only to see the story backtrack and show this missing portion. For example, after the monster is created, the Doctor disappears--going to a friend's house for an extended stay. The next thing that happens is that the monster kills Doctor Frankenstein's brother--what happened to all the things in between?! Then, after the monster and Doctor meet, the monster tells what happened in the intervening interval--sort of filling in the gaps. Unfortunately, the fill-in material seemed sketchy and incomplete---and rushed.Overall, this story manages to do something I always thought was impossible. It DID follow the book rather closely (much more than other versions) but it also managed to be dull and listless--and suck a bit as well. The indifferent energy level, lack of incidental music, bizarre non-sequential story and rather dull monster (who looked too ordinary--not very monstrous at all) all worked together to undo the story. It just felt as if the film makers were trying to get the project done QUICKLY. The loving style and script of the Dan Curtis version just wasn't present. And, the fun and creepiness of the Universal version wasn't there as well. It's all a bit of a disappointment.A couple other observations about the film. It is probably the brownest Frankenstein film ever. Part of it is undoubtedly due to the sets, locales and the director's vision. In addition, the DVD print shows some degradation in the form of yellowing--making things appear even more brownish. In addition, the DVD sucks because it offers no closed captions nor DVD captions--a serious negative for my deaf daughter who wanted to see the film with me. Plus, I just like to use captions now that I am old and decrepit and 45!By the way, this Frankenstein monster is the least monstrous in film history! Just some black lipstick on a hippie is all he appears to be!

Henry Kujawa It seems in the early-mid 70's, everybody was making Frankenstein and Dracula movies, some of them purporting to be adaptations of their respective books. A few actually did come close, with mixed results. TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN, as it turns out, is the single MOST faithful-to-the-book of the large (and still growing) number of Frankenstein films. It's got a good (if mostly unknown) cast, fabulous locations, a magnificent "classical"-style music score, and an almost tragically tiny budget. Oh well! A good friend of mine likes to say that a lot of great movies have been made from terrible books (though he seems to forget the reverse is also often true), and that being faithful to a novel, especially a "1st" novel by a particular author who may not have learned their craft yet, isn't necessarily a good thing. It CAN be done-- the BBC's "Count Dracula" with Louis Jourdan proves that beyond any shadow of doubt! TERROR... might make a good double-feature with that on those grounds, though it would come off looking bad by comparison (and considering the BBC film was shot on videotape, that should say a lot).I've been watching every Frankenstein film in my collection in a marathon, and that includes a number of adaptations, and it's interesting to note the differences in details and styles between them. Some things that stand out in this, from the beginning, include how wonderful some of the characters are, like Elizabeth (fiancee), William (younger brother), Henry (dashing best friend), and the comparatively dull and rather homely (in my opinion!) Victor does look nuts to be going away to school when he's got such a great home life. Then there's Prof. Waldman, who at first dismisses Victor's interest in alchemy and magic, then a mere 2 years later, actually encourages him to continue whatever experiment he's doing (despite moments earlier suggesting he take a much-needed vacation with his family), on a "grander scale"-- thus unwittingly planting the seed for the horrible, "unholy" experiment to come! Nearing the end, Victor suddenly starts asking himself, "What am I DOING?" --but continues anyway! And for the first time in any adaptation, he actually RUNS AWAY in fear from what he's brought to life, then wonders if he didn't imagine it, then nervously goes home for the holidays with his best friend, after being unable to locate his creation.And suddenly William, the sort of younger brother I wish I'D had, gets murdered-- for no apparent reason. Only when Victor catches up with the killer do we learn what went on in the meantime. Having recently seen the Dan Curtis version, which may the 2ND-most faithful adaptation, I have to say I think that film made a wise decision to eliminate the flashback structure and tell everything in the order it happened. (This entire film is one long flashback, as it STARTS in the Arctic, with Victor telling his story to the ship captain who's hell-bent on expanding man's horizons and seeking unknown benefits to mankind-- at whatever the cost! Interesting parallel there.) Also, every time the DC version made changes, it wound up making the creature MORE sympathetic, more sad, and that wound up turning that film into a heart-wrenching tragedy. Not so here. This monster is either amoral, or just plain EVIL, depending on mood-swings-- and repeatedly justifies every destructive action it takes-- like BURNING DOWN the house of the old blind man. After seeing the blind man and/or his family in several versions, even I was shocked by that turn! One minor failing of the DC version is the scene when Victor changes his mind about creating a mate-- SECONDS before completing the job. It was a moment that seemed ill-explained within that story. Here, Victor changes his mind after witnessing another family NEEDLESSLY slaughtered by his creation. How IS he to trust someone so blatantly evil? If anything, one might ask, WHY didn't he pack some serious firepower and try to KILL his monster when he was alone with the guy? (Of course, that's not how the author wrote it...) The ending, like the rest, remains faithful, as Victor dies (from exhaustion and stress?) before his creation's eyes, who then laments to the ship captain how Victor created him-- but then refused to take responsibility for life, and that now, death is the only consolation he has, as in death, he will no longer be a monster.Now, maybe in other hands, a truly faithful adaptation still awaits to be made which can also be artistically and emotionally compelling-- which this, admittedly, kinda falls short of. I'm afraid after all the carnage, I really had NO sympathy left for the monster at all, and not much more for Victor. I recommend to anyone who likes this film, to follow it up with a viewing of the Dan Curtis version-- and SEE if that one doesn't tear your heart out (emotionally speaking) by the end.

james_oblivion One of the more faithful adaptations (though that doesn't say much) of Mary Shelley's novel, this film is worth a look if you can see it without spending much money...particularly if you're a fan of the book, as I am. It does, unfortunately, leave out some key points of the novel, but not as many as most adaptations.Cinematically, the film is rather drab. Too many sustained static shots and a rather sparse score bog the film down a bit, and the acting is too uneven. Some performances are great, while others are mediocre, and a few are simply bad.Overall, the film feels a bit uneven and minimalistic, but it doesn't stray into some of the ridiculous areas that many Frankenstein films do. If only the direction were a bit more lively and the running time a bit longer (in order to include more of the important notes from the novel), it could have been a great film.One considerable step down from Kenneth Branaugh's 1994 adaptation.

merk214 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).