Dan Curtis production originally made for television, one of the many renderings of the classic Mary Shelley tale. It's shot on videotape and was originally aired as a two-part episode of a show called "Wide World Mystery". It's quite underwhelming at first, at least until the appearance of the monster (interestingly played by Bo Svenson). From then on, Svenson's humanistic approach as a tortured and sympathetic creature makes for a decent take on the original story. His is one of the finest monsters in any Frankenstein production. Robert Foxworth doesn't fare as well as Dr. Victor Frankenstein; he's over the top and rather theatrical. **1/2 out of ****
11 Reviews
Videotaped adaptation benefits from Bo Svenson as The Giant
kevinolzak14 January 2023
Broadcast in two parts (Jan. 16 and 17, 1973) on ABC's late night THE WIDE WORLD OF MYSTERY, this Dan Curtis production of "Frankenstein" has been largely forgotten in the wake of the subsequent big budget adaptation "Frankenstein: The True Story," and while neither is as faithful to the Mary Shelley source as they purport to be, the latter does have the edge with a wider scope and presentation. Suffering from the same dated videotape format of DARK SHADOWS, director Glenn Jordan had neither the money nor special effects to do something on par with even James Whale's celebrated version, and a woefully inadequate lead performance from Robert Foxworth as Victor Frankenstein, who looks and acts far too modern to convince in its 1856 setting. If nothing else, the characterization of The Giant is enough to justify this version, Bo Svenson born a newborn innocent like Boris Karloff, who knows not his own strength, and is horrified at the reaction to his scarred visage. The only other noteworthy portrayal is that of Susan Strasberg as Elizabeth, sadly underwritten and just as lacking as Foxworth's Victor, who curiously never tries to search for his creature after it accidentally murders his lab assistant and vanishes into the night, later finding comfort at a woodland cottage where he gains a greater degree of knowledge and speech by watching them in secret.
DAN CURTIS' FRANKENSTEIN (Glenn Jordan, 1973; TV) **1/2
Bunuel197624 February 2011
Among the myriad 'offsprings', I have watched a dozen direct adaptations of the Mary Shelley horror tale (1910, 1931, 1935, 1952, 1957, 1958, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1994, 2004); this new addition to the list is an average production, not too bad in itself but hardly inspired. The best thing about it is the reasonably strong presence of creator (Robert Foxworth) and creature (Bo Svenson) – the former is as engrossed in his Great Experiment as he is detached from his home life, while the latter handles the character' essentially guileless nature, developing into (and alternating between) brute strength and pathos, quite well. The rest of the cast hardly matters – John Karlen (from Harry Kumel's arty vampire flick DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS {1971}) as one of the Baron's (technically, he is not one since his father is still alive!) associates is killed off early (his inadvertent death at the monster's hands effectively replacing the celebrated one of the little girl from James Whale's seminal 1931 version!) and Susan Strasberg is wasted as Elizabeth.
Interestingly, when the film begins, Frankenstein is already a pariah among his own peers – yet, nothing is subsequently made of this, with Dr. Waldman barely figuring in the narrative at all! Again, however, the creation scene being disrupted by the arrival of Frankenstein Senior, Elizabeth and his clueless old colleague (not to mention the harnessing of natural electricity, i.e. lightning, to this end) shamelessly rips off the classic Colin Clive/Boris Karloff picture! The famous educational scenes with the blind hermit from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) are there (except the visually-impaired one is a girl) but these have none of the poignant beauty of that film. However, there is no malevolent figure like Ernest Thesiger's Dr. Praetorius from Whale's even better sequel or James Mason's Polidori in the rival (and decidedly superior) production to the film under review, FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973). The death of Young Frankenstein{sic}'s kid brother and Elizabeth herself are ported over from the original source but the finale is rather tame, bafflingly eschewing a decent final confrontation between monster and mad scientist by having Foxworth slip and impale himself on a spike(!) and Svenson conventionally expiring to bullet wounds fired by the conveniently-arriving Police!!
Incidentally, despite being part of a TV series called "Wide World Mystery" and originally shown in 2 segments, the film has been released on DVD as DAN CURTIS' FRANKENSTEIN – even if he only served as Producer/Co-Writer on it. For the record, this was the third of his TV adaptations of literary horror classics: the others were THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968), THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (the only one I have not watched and do not own yet!), Dracula (both 1973) and THE TURN OF THE SCREW (1974).
Interestingly, when the film begins, Frankenstein is already a pariah among his own peers – yet, nothing is subsequently made of this, with Dr. Waldman barely figuring in the narrative at all! Again, however, the creation scene being disrupted by the arrival of Frankenstein Senior, Elizabeth and his clueless old colleague (not to mention the harnessing of natural electricity, i.e. lightning, to this end) shamelessly rips off the classic Colin Clive/Boris Karloff picture! The famous educational scenes with the blind hermit from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) are there (except the visually-impaired one is a girl) but these have none of the poignant beauty of that film. However, there is no malevolent figure like Ernest Thesiger's Dr. Praetorius from Whale's even better sequel or James Mason's Polidori in the rival (and decidedly superior) production to the film under review, FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973). The death of Young Frankenstein{sic}'s kid brother and Elizabeth herself are ported over from the original source but the finale is rather tame, bafflingly eschewing a decent final confrontation between monster and mad scientist by having Foxworth slip and impale himself on a spike(!) and Svenson conventionally expiring to bullet wounds fired by the conveniently-arriving Police!!
Incidentally, despite being part of a TV series called "Wide World Mystery" and originally shown in 2 segments, the film has been released on DVD as DAN CURTIS' FRANKENSTEIN – even if he only served as Producer/Co-Writer on it. For the record, this was the third of his TV adaptations of literary horror classics: the others were THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1968), THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (the only one I have not watched and do not own yet!), Dracula (both 1973) and THE TURN OF THE SCREW (1974).
Bo Svenson stole this
MichaelM-315 July 1999
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!
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!
No, it is not a faithful or even a close adaptation of the book
tl1217 July 2011
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.
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.
TV adaptation
Leofwine_draca6 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
FRANKENSTEIN is a two-part adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, produced by Dan Curtis and released under the WIDE WORLD OF MYSTERY banner. Robert Foxworth makes for a somewhat garrulous and unlikeable Victor Frankenstein; try as I might, I can't picture him in the role, which needs somebody more cultured and lithe, a Cushing or Clive. Foxworth is big and bearded and barnstorming, more suited to a Praetorian guard than a man of science. The good news is that this adaptation benefits from a sympathetic Creature performance from big Bo Svenson, who certainly doesn't hold back when ladling in the pathos. The adaptation itself is hampered by a lacklustre budget, which precludes the use of special effects or much in the way of historical authenticity, but it sticks pretty closely to the novel and does the job well enough. The pace does tend towards sluggishness at times and there's little 'oomph!' here, however.
A very sad tale--much closer to the original story than the Karloff version
planktonrules20 February 2006
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.
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 only faithful version of Shelly's classic
ERASMUS_JR10 February 2006
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.
The Best Ever
holmstrom15 May 2008
What a great portrayal! Bravo to Bo Svenson for his realistic creature. Finally, someone has played the damned story of this unfortunate from the book. What a wonderful job of acting. The scene with the mirror: "Who's hand, please?" Or when Svenson says, "I cry," in almost bewilderment that he is able to even do so ... priceless acting. I remember watching this on TV and being in tears at the plight of the terrible tragedy of this child-like giant through no fault of his own. No other cinematic telling of the Shelley classic has ever even come close. I remember that the acting across the board was excellent, but Svenson was simply incredible.
If this is available anywhere, I'd sure like to have a copy.
If this is available anywhere, I'd sure like to have a copy.
The eloquent monster
suchenwi20 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Very good and faithful version
Skragg9 April 2007
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
