Lack of good storyline.

From my favorite movies..

Brilliant and touching

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

Having said that, being closer to Mary Shelly's book does not in it's self make the movie good or bad. I love the Karloff version but it is nothing like the book. From the many Frankenstein based movies I gave this one a 5. Bo Svenson's height was perfect for the role of the creature and he played it with sensitivity.The book is a first person account with Victor Frankenstein narrating the story to the captain of a ship who rescued Victor from freezing on the same ice that the ship is locked in.The only movie that I have seen that is really close to the book is the 2004 Hallmark version. While the creature is more good looking than described in the book, the characters are correct, the chronology is correct and the changing disposition of the creature is correct. It is available on DVD and I recommend it to all fans of the book and/or the movies.

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.

While I am a firm believer that there will NEVER be a version of Frankentein that is as good as the book, this is at least a step in the right direction. While I would rate the Karloff version higher simply because of its technical merits and ability to scare you, this made for TV version is superior in many ways. Unlike earlier versions, this one really centers on the creature and its unfortunate existence. Like the book, the focus is on the "monster" after it is soon abandoned by its maker and the life the creature creates for itself shows great humanity and depth. In fact, in this way, the movie is terribly sad and heart-wrenching. Let me give a couple of examples. First, soon after the creature is created, Frankenstein's assistant plays with him. The monster, unaware of his immense strength, crushes the poor assistant to death. When Frankenstein returns to find this, the creature is saying "Otto, play" over and over again because he has no idea what he's done. Second, after running away, the creature hides out in a pantry--living among the bags of potatoes. He is so lonely for human contact that he delights in listening to the family talk and interact--knowing he cannot reveal his ugly self to them. In fact, he is so miserable, that he creates a little pretend man out of a potato and talks to it out of desperation. How pathetic! This film chooses to focus on the creature and portray him like a toddler sent out to live alone. On this level it is very successful.UPDATE--I just saw this film again (11/09) and noticed even more than before that Bo Svenson's performance made this film. The rest of the cast (with the exception of the inn keeper) were all good, but Svenson humanized the monster in a way that no other act has done. His performance elicits far more pathos and connection with the audience than even the original great novel. A wonderful performance that more than makes up for the lower budget and changes to the story necessitated by the budgetary constraints (especially towards the end of the film). Well worth watching and better than the Karloff version in many ways. Also, there is another 1973 made for TV Frankenstein film, FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY. While well made in many ways, it's not nearly as good as this film and is too histrionic and deviates too far from the Shelley novel (despite the title). It's worth seeing, but Michael Sarrazin's monster is a far cry from Svenson's.

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.