Frankenstein Unbound

I first saw this little known early ninties title on HBO not long after its release. I must say I found it to be quite memorable, with excellent performances by John Hurt and Raul Julia as well as Bridget Fonda. I love the 1800 settings in Geneva (actually filmed in Italy) and the way Hurt slipped back in time and found where he was. (according to his car "we are alone") so cool. The monster was real creepy and he actually talks. All in all, a very good movie I highly recommend. As of this writing, its not out on DVD that I am aware of but if it does come out, it will definately be worthy of my collection.

as a die hard Gothic horror movie fan i try to watch all the versions of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein,some great some really bad.when i heard that roger corman was going to direct this i was excited,roger corman has'nt directed a movie in a very long time so i knew this was going to be quite special.with Raul Julia,john hurt,Bridgett Fonda,and Jason Patric in the cast,its a big budget production,the story is kind of bizarre,what if Mary Shelly's Frankenstein was based on a true story? well this kind hearted but well meaning mad scientist(hurt)gets sent back to the past with his futuristic talking car(like kit from knight-rider)and meets Mary Shelly(Fonda)and Dr Frankenstein(Julia)and his monster(nick brimble)this movie was based on the novel of the same name.its got a hauntingly good score,everything works,i liked Frankenstein unbound,i believe Mary Shelly would be proud.I'm glad roger corman directed this,he did a great job.8 out of 10.

With the recent passing of John Hurt, I decided to take another look at his movie "Frankenstein Unbound", despite the fact that I remembered that it disappointed me greatly when I first saw it as a teenager more than twenty five years ago.

Sadly, my opinion upon seeing the movie again wasn't that much more positive than when I first saw it. The best that I can say about it is that the acting is pretty good (especially by Hurt and Raul Julia), and the movie does bring up some ideas and themes that are intriguing and full of promise. But in the end, the movie puts far too much on its plate, and most of these good ideas and themes are either not fully explored or are treated in a pretty disappointing fashion.

As the movie's director (and co-writer of the screenplay), Roger Corman has to shoulder much of the blame for the above problem. But another problem he generates is that often that there is a matter- of-fact feeling to what we are seeing. The tone is aloof and lacking enough conviction and power that could grab an audience. It doesn't help that the production values are highly inconsistent, with the movie wavering between a fairly slick look and feel to one that comes across as cheap and shoddy.

To sum up, it doesn't take long upon watching the movie to figure out why 20th Century-Fox didn't give it much of a theatrical release, and why Corman to date has not sat in the director's chair again after this movie. If you want to see a John Hurt movie or a Roger Corman movie, there are much better choices out there.

First I must admit I have never been a Corman fan - all that spurting blood just never appealed to me. Yet something drew me to this, despite that concern, and I am not sorry I followed my hunch and rented this so many years ago. I tend to read the book either before or instead of watching movies, and Shelly wrote one amazing story. As much as I loved them, Karloff's movies had next to nothing besides the names to do with the book. As far as I am concerned, even though the story clearly does not precisely follow Shelly's tale, it is by far truest to the underlying depth of the book, and quite possibly the only film version that captures her primary theme of personal responsibility. The acting all around was good, especially considering some of the stretches required, and I quite enjoyed the special effects. Without going to wild extremes they were subtly effective and quite haunting. There were, of course, a few of Corman's trademark touches, but they fit the story so well even I could find no objection. As of this writing I have just watched this for the fifth time - quite a record considering I am still not really a Corman fan ;-)

Legendary independent filmmaker Roger Corman returned to a directors' chair for the first time in almost 20 years with this ambitious, offbeat project, an adaptation of the novel by Brian Aldiss. It's fun to a degree, and certainly interesting, if not a patch on his best work, the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations of the 1960s. Fortunately for him the budget does look like it was bigger on this thing than on some movies in his filmography. That allows for decent production values and a whole smorgasbord of special effects. The main attraction is the cast, especially our two leads, John Hurt and Raul Julia.

Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a scientist whose implosion experiments have created "time slips". Joe himself gets caught in a time slip and is transported back to Victorian times where he chances to meet none other than Dr. Frankenstein (Julia), his monster (Nick Brimble), Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda), Lord Byron (Jason Patrick), and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence, the late singer of the rock band INXS). Joe becomes determined to save the life of Justine Moritz (played by Cormans' daughter Catherine) and ultimately put an end to the monsters' rampage.

As scripted by Corman himself and film historian F.X. Feeney, this is fanciful entertainment that does have a good pace going for it. It is amusing to see characters from far different worlds interacting, although Frankenstein and others in this story adjust extremely well to discovering such things as computers and Joes' ultra-sophisticated car (which comes complete with a sexy female voice supplied by Terri Treas). The effects are frequently cheesy but entertaining, Nick Dudmans' makeup for the monster is good, period recreation is acceptable, and the music by Carl Davis provides just the right touch. How well the ending works may be up to the individual viewer.

Must viewing for all Corman devotees, if only to see the kind of project with which he laid his directorial career to rest.

Six out of 10.