Badmovies.org Forum

I watched this in my Horror-lit class recently. Not bad, and deffinatly more acurate to the book that the Karloff movie. The acting was ok, but the thing that I really liked was Robert Deniro as the Monster. And he talked! Not just incoherent groans, but actual diolouge! There were some cheesy lame parts, though. Like how Victor brings the creature to life. Instead of using lightning, he uses a big sack of electric eels!! HA!

I liked this one.  I know a lot of people didn't because they tried to compare it to Bram Stoker's Dracula...which I guess they wanted audiences to do (read: why it was green lit in the first place)

It follows the book reasonably well and the acting is good.  De Niro was a weird choice as the Monster but he makes it work.  Some things work while others don't.

I'm not kidding:  The best of the modern-era Frankenstein flicks is "Frankenstein Unbound" by Roger Corman!
Mary Shelly & her husband & druggy friends (You know, Lord Byron & those degenerates) show up as peripheral characters, Raul Julia is a fascinating Victor Frankenstein, and John Hurt as a time traveler.  Also with Jason Patric and Bridgett Fonda.
Based on a story by Brian Aldiss, it is literate, visually interesting, and compact, as Corman's work usually is.  Plus it has a great monster!
Very few people have seen this one, though.  I guess because of Corman's name on the box, they think it will be unmitigated cheese & give it a pass.  Big mistake.  If you haven't already seen it, I'd say check it out & I definitely like it more than the Branaugh/DeNiro film.
peter frankenstein/denny hurt

Robert made a great Frankenstein monster and the ending just blew me away with how emotionally ravaging it was , very well done. Does anybody else think that the way the monster was made was better than how it's typically portrayed? All the technology and big castles is impressive in its own right but the way it was done here felt like it could really happen in your neighbor's attic.

i had to watch it in school as well, it was a good movie especially de niro (i didn't actually notice it was him till someone else pointed it out)

Like Corman Frankenstein! Movie good! Urgh!  :thumbup:

Ah-GRUNT... I mean AGREE!!!  The film of FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND is terrific (though it, too, has a couple of ludicrous parts).  BRIAN ALDISS wrote a follow-up novel, DRACULA UNBOUND...
Oh!  As for Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN it's not bad, the part where DeNIRO as the monster takes his revenge always makes me cringe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFqGJD5ow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSIFqGJD5ow)

History lesson for you...this past tuesday was the anniversary of the original novel's publication. To mark the occasion, I was going to watch one of the versions, but I never got around to it.

Why didn't Google have a Frankie graphic?   :hatred: :question:  :lookingup:

I found MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEING to be totally forgettable.  Matter of fact, I've forgotten everything about it except having seen it.   :lookingup:

Definitely interested the Corman version though...sounds cool.

See it!  See it!!
You'll never forget the cobbled-together appearance of Corman's monster:  Eyeballs stiched together from parts of differently colored other eyes -- distorted limbs & a hideous strength that enables it to outrun a horse-drawn carriage!
Plus a rare philosophical depth that true science-fiction writers like Aldiss can infuse their writings with.  Corman, apparently, changed very little of the Aldiss story.  Many people forget that it was Corman who imported Ingmar Bergman's "Cries and Whispers".  The man is capable of deep thought, and capable of respecting it in others.
peter johnson/denny crane

I liked Dinero as the monster because he gave the creature a sensitivity that was featured in Shelly's novel.  Granted there was a decent amount of cheese mixed in that wasn't in the novel.  Still, one of the better adaptations IMHO.