People are voting emotionally.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

For all those asking whether this film is available on DVD - I bought it two weeks ago at the local (German) Woolworth. KSM 22486, German dub only, no subtitles, (c) 2003 Best Entertainment AG. Price: 1 euro.It's really remarkable what hidden gems one can find in the bargain bin. Of course, this is a 1973 TV movie (evident from "place commercial here" fade-outs at crucial moments), and the younger men's hairdo appeared to me rather like "hairdon't"...Also, I haven't read the Shelley novel, so I can't judge how true to it it was (but others have testified to that before). What I can say is that this version, compared to the classic 1931 Karloff's, goes to much greater depths. Mostly because here the monster goes to hide under a shack where a Spanish woman is patiently taught English, and he acquires quite a command of language by just listening. As others said, the focus is mostly on the monster's feelings, which he thus can express quite well.Seen in 2008, most "horror" elements weren't exactly horrific. I found it mostly touching, and in a good sense, to watch a very "other" person experience, struggle with, and discuss life. Oh, and he very almost gets a bride as well...All in all, a good experience. Except for the hairdos, but I cared less for them as the drama picked up speed.

I first saw this movie when it was first shown on TV, months before the other TV version from ' 73, the famous James Mason / Michael Sarrazin one. So to me, it's always the "early" one, and I'm partial to it, partly because I'm that way about all those Dan Curtis TVMs (and of course, Dark Shadows itself). As good as everyone in it is, Robert Foxworth and Bo Svenson were really great as Victor and the Creature. I really agree with Michael Morrison - Bo Svenson has to be the most underrated actor ever to play that part. Just about everything he did was so believable, including the "De Lacey" scenes - this might be the only version that shows that whole family from the book (though, strangely, it made the daughter the blind character in place of the father), and it might be the only one that shows the Creature spying on them at any real length, which makes the next thing that happens that much sadder.

The production values are not great and Foxworth is a barely capable actor but Svenson is remarkable. Despite claims to the contrary neither the 70s TV extravaganza with Michael Sarrazin nor Kenneth Branagh's adaptation even come close to the Frankenstein novel. This modest little adaptation is completely faithful to it's source material. It's a pity that's it is not available on tape or DVD. I saw this on late night television in the early seventies and since I was familiar with the novel I enjoyed seeing it and was surprised by how effective Svenson was as the monster. Dan Curtis (Dark Shadows) who produced and adapted this also did a wonderful version of Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde with Jack Palance. I'd like to see that again as well.

In some ways, this was the best of the Frankenstein monster sagas.Bo Svenson, a terribly underrated actor, gave surely the best performance of anyone as the monster.Svenson gave a humanity to the creature that no one else ever has achieved.It's a good movie, but the Svenson performance was great!