Good start, but then it gets ruined

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I must add my own two-cents worth to those others who regard Frankenstein: The True Story as the most satisfying film version of of Mary Shelly's 1818 classic. Though it is not a literal translation of the story, it captures the philosophical nature, melancholy mood and epic scope of Mrs. Shelly's novel better than any other celluloid rendition. While keeping the bare bones (no pun intended) of the novel's plot, it dances all around the original story, pulling off plot elements here and there, then sticking them back on elsewhere. For instance, Henri, in the original merely Victor Frankenstein's concerned best friend, is transformed into a mad doctor who gives Victor the monster-making knowledge. In the book Elizabeth was the ward of Victor's father, but Vic is the ward of Liz's dad in True Story. The Dr. Polidori character, played by James Mason oozing evil from every pore, was a brilliant touch, but no such character appears in the novel. Yet, there was a real-life Polidori in Mary Shelly's orbit. He was Shelly friend Lord Byron's personal physician, confidant, and dope supplier. A brilliant young man, who had already published several medical books, he tragically took his own life at age 21 -- according to some, because of his unrequited love for Mary Shelly!True Story owes little to previous movie versions, neither the mossy old 1930's and 'forties Universal Frankenstein series or Hammer's 1950's/'60's revivals, but is a completely fresh approach. The brilliant script by Isherwood and Bachardy is almost as literary as Mrs. Shelly novel, yet even more exciting and stimulating. True Story is a splendid production, probably one of the most handsomely turned out made-for-TV numbers of all time. Period (1797 and following) sets and costumes are exquisite. The cinematography is beautiful, belying its TV origins every step of the way. Unlike most TV movies of the time and practically all current theatrical movies, it disdains the shot-a-second montage method in favor of the mise-en-scene approach -- every scene starts with a precisely composed long shot, which gradually pans in to close-up. This classic style of cinematography complements the beautiful sets, enhances the melancholy mood, and displays the humanity of the characters better than montage. Here it is used brilliantly by director of photography Arthur Ibbetson and director Jack Smight.Frankenstein: The True Story is expertly acted by Mason, Leonard Whiting (Victor), Nicole Padget (Elizabeth), Michael Sarrizan (Creature), Jane Seymour (female creature) and the rest of a fine cast. It is dramatically engaging, thoroughly engrossing for its entire three hours, intellectually stimulating, and gorgeously filmed. A delight from beginning to end. Even Old Hollywood would have been proud to have turned out such a complete motion picture.P.S. -- Those who are interested in learning more about that early 19th century femme fa-tale and the origin of her famous monster story would do well to read Miranda Seymour's superbly researched, highly readable biography of Mary Shelly (Grove Press, NY, 2000).

This version of Frankenstein was shown on television in two parts back in 1973. The film starts with a prologue by James Mason that was, for the most part, completely unnecessary. In addition, it shows various clips of the movie that tend to ruin the film to a degree. My advice is skip this and go right to the film.As for the title, it implies that this is closer to Mary Shelley's original story and in most ways it is closer than other versions---in particular, the famous 1931 version. However, while much closer, a lot of additional material was added and by the two hour mark, it really deviates into a strange direction indeed. I really wish someone would make a version EXACTLY like the book, but so far I have no knowledge of anyone who has done this. The biggest difference the original tale and films have is that the films always spend a lot of time on how the Doctor created his monster--whereas in the book, there's very little about this. Instead, the book emphasizes the lack of responsibility the creator plays towards his creation--the true purpose of the novel. And, fortunately, this movie does focus on this quite a bit...as well as the creation of the monster.As for the "monster", an interesting choice was made for this film. Instead of the usual hideous man covered in stitches, the producers decided to hire handsome leading man Michael Sarrazin for the role. Initially, he is a very handsome creation--receiving the admiration of others. However, in a very interesting twist, the creation begins to decompose and morph slowly--and then becomes the hideous creature. I liked this approach--as it was very novel and offered something different.As the man begins to decompose and lose his prettiness, at the same time you slowly see the Doctor become more and more distant from his creation--losing his temper and treating him shabbily. Frankenstein's acting like a jerk is excellent--and more in keeping with the novel--something often forgotten in other versions of the story. In other words, the creation becoming a monster was the result of his being rejected by his creator--not just because he was ugly--though the rejection was not as complete here as in the book.On his own, the monster is befriended by a blind guy (Ralph Richardson) and this ends in the tragic deaths of his family. For some odd reason, the monster wants the now dead daughter of Richardson (Jan Seymour) to be brought back to life. But, for an even odder reason, instead of taking him to Frankenstein, he brings him to Mason who has been wanting to make his own undead freak. This portion of the film is as far removed from the original story as you can get and the film only gets back to the original story after the whole "Dr. Polidori" segment is complete.It turns out that Mason was an evil mad scientist (unlike Frankenstein who was just a misguided and irresponsible mad scientist), as he decided to use Sarrazin for his own end--to force Frankenstein to help him make another, and hopefully better, creation using the body of Seymour (among others). After the newest creation comes to life, there is an extended portion of the film involving Seymour--who is a bit of a conniving nympho and nutter! It's as if Seymour is doing a warm-up for her later role in the TV mini-series "East of Eden"! Now, following an attempt by Polidori and Frankenstein to murder the creature, it's no wonder that Sarrazin's character goes insane and starts to do bad things!! How this ends comes as a rather nasty surprise, that's for sure! But, as I said before, none of this bears any resemblance to the original novel and it all seems a bit histrionic.Now, after two and a half hours, the film finally returns to the book's plot--consisting of a drawn-out portion where the creation goes about destroying the life of his creator. Ultimately, it takes the film to the Arctic for a final showdown--something few movies ever bothered to do, but which was an important part of Shelley's story.Overall, it was a very enjoyable and lavish film. Unfortunately, it also was NOT the "true story" it purported itself to be, as at times it bore little semblance to Shelley's novel.Interestingly, 1973 was a banner year for made for TV Frankenstein films (in addition to the freaky Andy Warhol version). In addition to this film, "Wide World Mystery" (ABC) also made their own version that lacked the budget and cast this film had, but which had a much more interesting and sympathetic monster--and, in my opinion, was a better film. I say that you should see them both, though, as they are both very well made in their own way.By the way, there were a few goofy moments in the film despite it being a pretty good movie. First, watching human limbs retain 'memories' and have the ability to crawl about independently was pretty stupid. It may have looked neat, but just made me groan. Second, the hypnosis scene with James Mason and Agnes Moorehead was also pretty silly--no one can hypnotize anyone like this! Third, while Michael Sarrazin's creature was not too pretty later in the film, he was not THAT ugly and people's reactions to him seemed pretty absurd. I especially laughed when Agnes Moorehead saw him and had a fit and died!!! Talk about silly! And the lightning bolt turning Polidori into an instant skeleton! Ha!

Full-blooded telling of the Frankenstein story manages to be fresh and original and sustains its running time. There are several terrific performances and possibly the most sympathetic, tragic portrayal of the monster ever by Michael Sarrazin. Dr. Henry Clerval (David McCallum) enlists the services of brilliant surgeon Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) to help him create a human being from body parts. As everybody knows, the experiment hits a hiccup and "The Creature" goes bananas. But when Dr. John Pilodori (James Mason) steps up to the plate to construct a second creature with Frankenstein's aid, the drama hits its stride and all hell breaks loose. Some of that "hell" is the understandable anger of Frankenstein's bride (Nicola Pagett), who is forced to spend her wedding night alone while hubby is busy giving life to dead things in his hillside lab. Mason is incredible as the obsessed, insane Polidori, the film's true villain, and does a good job of making us (the audience) loathe the very sight of him. Pagett is strong as the frustrated but devoted wife, and Whiting is a memorable Frankenstein. Also worthy of praise is Ralph Richardson who breathes much life into the role of the Blind Hermit. Sarrazin, however, is a revelation as the decaying, angry, emotionally distraught experiment gone wrong. Because we have seen him proud and happy, it is horrible to watch him physically disintegrate and become persona non grata in the Frankenstein lab. During the creation of Jane Seymour's "Bride", it was devastating to see the dejected Sarrazin witnessing the process, knowing his time had already come and gone. Later, the scene in which he crashes a party and beheads a key character is a classic horror moment and manages to be emotional and grotesque. Aside from the last scene, which has an inexplicable abruptness to it, this is a fantastic Frankenstein adaptation.

This movie cries out for restoration on DVD. I saw it in its original run on NBC and was amazed at how this movie balanced moments of elegance and pathos with sudden acts of graphic violence. It was very strong stuff for early 70s TV. It inspired me to read the novel and IMHO it is one of the best adaptations to the screen. It is also one of the first appearances for Jane Seymour coming out the same year as "Live and Let Die". She shows her acting chops by playing a beautiful woman with a very cruel streak. Her "death" is a shocker. Those who like their horror Gothic need to pick up a copy of this, even if it only available on VHS.