Customer Reviews

Frankenstein Unbound

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Despite campy moments and the occasional silly special effect, Frankenstein Unbound surprisingly offers up an intriguing morality tale. While it is definatly a horror/sci-fi film, it really is (as the box claims) a monster movie for the thinking person.

When a future scientist (John Hurt) creates an invention that implodes space, he finds himself catapulted back to 19th century England. There he meets Mary Shelly, Percy Shelly, and, of course, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster.

The relationships between Frankenstein, Hurt's arrogant scientist, and their respective "monsters," explore the idea that once you create something you cannot un-create it. Even if you destroy your creation you can never make things the way they were before--It is unbound.

I agree with "THNEEBAN" about the monster--it is the best Frankenstein I have seen on film. I too found the ending surreal and very fitting. While not for all tastes, I am always surprised by how long this film--especially the ending--lingers in my mind.

After 19 years of absence, legendary director Roger Corman returns to direct "Franenstein Unbound". This version is based on Brian Aldiss' novel. It's quite different from the other classic approaches. The idea is about a man (John Hurt) who lives in the future 2031 & moves back in time (19th Century) and meets an earlier scientist Frankenstein (Raul Julia). Frankenstein has created a Monster who has already killed his 6-year-old brother and is now threatening the entire city...

It's wonderful how they blended the life of Mary Shelley - the young woman who will later write the novel FRANKENSTEIN!

I place this movie in the company of such greats as The Beastmaster, Battle Beyond the Stars, and Flash Gordon: B-movies that have WAY too much appeal for their own good.

Frankstein Unbound is a loose (but much better) adaptation of the mind-numbing novel by Brian Aldiss. A future scientist's experiments with weapons of war causes a tear in time and space that throws him straight into early 19th-century Europe. There, he learns that the story of Frankstein is based on fact. He encounters the doctor, the monster, the "bride", Mary and Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron, all played by a cast surprisingly well-known for this type of film.

The movie is alternately creepy and sappy, and a fling between scientist John Hurt and Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) will surely evoke rolling of the eyes. It's loaded with melodrama, but that's okay, because there's enough cool sci-fi/horror standards present to satisfy anyone, including a suitably "out-there" and fantastic ending. Plus, this movie has the absolute best version of Frankenstein's monster that I have EVER seen, either in film, TV, print, or whatever. The monster's look is truly inspired, and his personality is captured perfectly.

Check this one out... just to say you did. It's very entertaining.

To all the Frankenstein purists: get over it.

I went to this movie at an art cinema in Washington DC when it came out. I was expecting a classic Frankenstein story. I only wanted to go because the movie poster, with a stiched iris, looked fascinating. When I saw someone driving a car, and demonstrating an implosion device, I thought I was in the wrong theater. Eventually it all started to make sense, but only if you have beyond a 5th grade education. Buy this movie, but don't expect a lumbering monster with a square head going, "Uuuuuuh uuuuuuuuh uuuuuuuh"

The first time I watched this film, I was rather disappointed, expecting one of Roger Corman's usual grade-B outings on steroids (now that he was back in the director's chair for the first time in 30 years). It was just different enough that I watched it again later and I was hooked.

SPOILER: Some reviewers have compared this film to Kenneth Branaugh's Frankenstein. I suppose it was inevitable as Branaugh's movie outright stole from this one the brilliant concept of Victor creating the monster's mate from the body of his murdered Elizabeth. Frankenstein Unbound, though low-budget, has a wry wit, understated yet sincere performances, and a smoothly flowing directorial style while Branaugh's movie has electric eels(!), a rather gay porn-like creation scene(with lots of mineral oil), and Robert....Deniro....talking....slowly.

Many people seem to be under the misconception that the monster in Shelley's original novel was supposed to be likeable, that it was really a good guy underneath the weird appearance and it was just misunderstood. This simply isn't true. The monster starts out innocent but once it matures, it becomes a bitter, hateful killer out to destroy all those that Victor loves. Frankenstein was a horror story. The monster is a ghastly specter haunting Victor into the grave and only after Victor's death does a faint echo of the monster's former self sadly re-emerge long enough for it to lament over what its done and immolate itself. This film's monster played by Nick Brimble is the most faithful to the original source out of any movie version. Childlike while searching for understanding, it is in the process of becoming bitter and murderous when our hero played by John Hurt stumbles upon the proceedings after traveling time from 2031 to turn-of-the-century (19th, that is) Switzerland.

The story elements involving the trial and execution of the girl accused of murdering Victor's little brother are more faithfully lifted from Mary Shelley's novel than any film version yet. Where most directors, apparently envious of the ingenious twists on the concept spun by the Hammer films, repeatedly try to re-invent the story, Frankenstein Unbound uses a straigh-forward version of the story, perhaps because there is enough of a new twist with the time-traveling protagonist. Hurt's character's means of dealing with his new reality and the villagers' reaction to him are rather fun. Raul Julia is composed and elegant as Frankenstein with just a hint of madness. The chemistry between the cast-members is great, Bridget Fonda is excellent as Mary Shelley, and the computerized future-car is actually an italian concept-car called the Aztec, which I read about in a car magazine shortly before seeing this film. The opening reference to Albert Einstein's witnessing of an A-bomb test, the children's "funeral" for their old bicycle, and the dream sequences are full of symbolism of the story's themes: the pandora's box of knowledge, once opened, can never be closed again/ the more things change, the more they stay the same/ the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the finale, I really felt for the monster as he was being destroyed by John Hurt's character who, now full of bombast and judgement, is now the monster and says, "I am Frankenstein", referring to his own creation of a device which has destroyed the earth as we know it.

No, this film is definitely not for the gum-chewing crowd, but if you want to experience something low-key but different, give this one a try.

Yes, this movie is a mixed bag. I'm a huge Frankenstein fan so I try to see every version. With a bigger budget, this may have been a great film but with Corman's frugal direction, it ain't too bad. Hell, with John Hurt and Raul Julia in the same flick, you can't go wrong. The monster is well done, if a bit overwrought but there's never been an uglier, more monsterous version of the creature. It hs brains, gore, cool time rift effects and swell costumes. The pace is a bit slow, but with it's unique twist on the classic tale, you get to have a new perspective.

Corman's "Frankenstein Unbound" is a masterpiece; as such, it will always be misunderstood, thus underestimated, by cultural illiterates. The title itself presupposes familiarity with Romantic literature: it is an ironic reference to P.B. Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound"--a major verse drama that expressed visionary optimism, the poet's belief that mankind's future would be incomparably bright (liberated from tyranny, superstition, and all manner of age-old errors). In contrast, "Frankenstein Unbound" paints an extremely bleak picture of the future--presenting a world that is dominated and eventually wrecked by misguided (or unguided) science. In brief, the future resembles the past--only worse!
At the center of this pessimistic world-vision stands Dr. Joe Buchanan (ably played by John Hurt)--a brilliant scientist who develops an atrocious weapon that can tear open the fabric of time and space. Inevitably Buchanan becomes a victim of his own creation, which transports him from 2031 Los Angeles to 1817 Switzerland. There he meets his natural counterpart--Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia), an archetypal scientist being victimized by his own ungovernable creation. Cold, amoral intellect seems to unite past and future, Frankenstein and Buchanan--thus suggesting the speciousness of "progress."
The film's pessimism would be unmitigated if it were not for the presence of Mary Shelley (splendidly portrayed by Bridget Fonda). The author of "Frankenstein," Mistress Shelley appears as a young unpublished writer drawing inspiration for her great novel from her shrewd observations of Frankenstein himself. She deduces that the man has created an inhuman murderer. Further, as a true visionary she helps guide Buchanan to a proper understanding of things. She intuits that divine purpose, not accident, brought Buchanan to 19th century Geneva: his mission is to stop Frankenstein, whose monstrous experiment she terms "an abomination in the eyes of God." Enlightened, inspired, fascinated by the sheer insight of Mary Shelley, Buchanan follows her directive; he confronts Frankenstein and his creature in a fantastic duel set in the remote future's frozen wasteland. This battle makes for exciting, beautifully atmospheric cinema, which cries out to be seen! Descriptions can't begin to do it justice.
Romantic vision is likewise evident in the film's two monsters--Frankenstein's creation and Buchanan's time-space warp. The latter manifests as a freakishly shaped storm-cloud; Mary's husband Percy Bysshe Shelley (Michael Hutchence) is shown to be fascinated by the thing: no doubt he is using it as a model for his poem "The Cloud." As for Frankenstein's monster--played by Nick Brimble, he is ghastly, nightmarish. This macabre rendering is clearly in sync with Mary Shelley's original novel, rather than the overrated productions of 1930's Hollywood.
The musical score of "Frankenstein Unbound" is also outside provincial/Hollywood traditions, though well within the mainstream of serious music: it is a relentless orchestral dirge composed by Carl Davis. In its overwhelming power this score recalls the symphonic style of Gustav Mahler. Well-crafted, infinitely expressive.
To recapitulate: as a superb work of film-art, "Frankenstein Unbound" constantly refers to other works of art that occupy the same universe of Romantic imagination. While its depth and subtlety will repay many viewings, the film's greatness will never be accessible to culturally deprived dunces. "Frankenstein Unbound" is simply beyond the powers of the Many, for whom I've some invaluable advice: stay focused on network TV.

Having just sat through my umpteenth 100 million dollar plus CGI extravaganza (which shall remain anonymous although it is interchangable with any number of big budget films made since the turn of the century), I find myself gravitating more and more to the low budget films of yore where special effects were subservient to character, story, and acting. No one was better at getting the most out of the least on a consistent basis than Roger Corman whose directing career spanned 35 years and 56 films (he produced close to 400 others including early efforts by Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, and James Cameron). His last effort, 1990's FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND, shows him still at the top of his game in providing topical, thought provoking material in a creative no-nonsense style that puts many bigger films to shame. Based on the book by British writer Brian Aldiss (the title is a play on the titles FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS and PROMETHEUS UNBOUND), the movie incorporates the Frankenstein story, the Shelleys in Switzerland, and time travel in an engrossing and highly original way.

Mid 21st century scientist John Hurt is accidentally transported, by an experiment of his own devising, back to 1817 Geneva where the people and the events related in Mary Shelley's novel are real and he becomes involved in their unfolding. His 21st century computerised car is with him and provides interesting commentary a la KNIGHT RIDER on their plight. The Monster is the most fearsome cinematic creation yet (based on the 1910 Edison version and looking forward to Robert De Niro's creature in MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN 4 years later) and Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) is a totally believable 19th century intellectual whose moral blindness results in the creation of a biological monstrosity. You get the crux of Mary Shelley's book, a look at the Shelleys and Lord Byron, a modicum of violence, and a time travel finale that should provide food for thought long afterwards. Shot on location in Italy with beautiful 19th century costumes as well as believable modern technology (the car is great), FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND combines solid storytelling with the kind of cerebral stimulation sorely missing today from most movies of this type.

This film is loosely based on Mary Shelly's famous gothic novel Frankenstein. The author of the novel on which the film is based includes the main facts of the Frankenstein tale, but he takes some liberties with it to fit his science fiction plot. Needless to say, the ending of the two books are different. The moral of both is the same: scientists must beware of what they create and advancements in science are harmful. I suggest that readers read my review of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

Dr. Frankenstein in the Mary Shelley novel created a human being that he thought would help mankind, but his creation had unintended consequences, and led to deaths. So, too, a scientist in 2031 tries to create a weapon to defend his country, but there are unplanned results; the sky is disturbed by turbulences, a strange cloud appears, and people disappear. Then, he himself is transported back in time to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1817, together with his futuristic car with a very advanced computer.

He enters a Swiss pub and happens to sit next to Dr. Victor Frankenstein. He knows who the doctor is because he had read Mary Shelley's book. He follows Frankenstein and sees him speaking to a large, deformed, and ugly creature who demands that the doctor give him what he wants. When the doctor refuses, the creature says he will take revenge by killing Frankenstein's fiancée, Elizabeth. The scientist hears no more because he is knocked unconscious by a rock slide. When he wakes, he walks into town and hears that Julie, who lived in the Frankenstein house, is accused of murdering Frankenstein's younger brother. The scientist knows that this accusation is false and that the creature murdered the youth because of what he read in the Shelley book.

He rushes to Frankenstein and tries to persuade him to save the innocent girl by revealing the truth, but the doctor refuses. He takes his car to the villa where Mary Shelley is staying with the two famous poets, her future husband and Byron, thinking that since she wrote about the event, she must know that Julie is innocent, and he can convince her to help Julie. However, he fails to realize that Mary did not write the book yet and has no idea at that time of the truth. He tells her that he is from the future and has sex with her. She tells him that she feels that he came back in time to stop Frankenstein.

The creature kills Elizabeth as he threatened and Frankenstein is unmoved because he has become insane. He takes Elizabeth's body and uses the corpse to create a new being. It is unclear whether the new Elizabeth is for him or his creature. However, like his former creation, she is deformed and ugly, and when she awakens, she is shocked and disturbed by her appearance, and kills herself. The creature thinking that Elizabeth was made to be his mate, goes bezerk. I will leave it for the viewer to see the details of what I sketched, to find out what happens next, and discover why the film is called Frankenstein Unbound.

Set in the not-so-distant future (2026 I think), FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (1990) is tangentially the story of Dr. Joe Buchanan (John Hurt), an English scientist perfecting a death ray for the U.S. government. When the weapon begins undoing the fabric of time, Dr. Buchanan gets sucked into a "time-shift" of his own making...all the way back to ca. 1812, Lake Geneva, Switzerland. He hopes he will meet Lord Byron and Mary Shelley (well, who wouldn't)--but his first encounter is with Baron Dr. von Frankenstein (Raul Julia who should have known better than to accept this role).

What is cool about this film--one of my Deeply Personals--is the vision and scope Roger Corman brought to this potentially silly story. When Brain Aldiss wrote the original novel, I'll bet he had little idea of someone wanting to make it into a film. It is low-budget, and some of the stuff is ridiculous (we are expected to believe that in early 19th century Switzerland, everyone spoke perfect modern English). Yet it truly hit a high note, and set the stage for the changes in film that in turn marked the change from the 1980s to the 1990s.

While a tad gruesome and violent, this film presented audiences with a monster that couldn't be conceived! Introducing character actor Nick Brimble (MYSTIC PIZZA, LOCH NESS) as the monster, the film set the stage for a monster at once philosophical, innocent, angrily violent and quite intelligent. From the huge metal plates in either side of his head to two sets of thumbs on each hand, this monster is more like the Predator. The good doctor wanted him that way, and he actually matches Shelley's original idea better than any monster in film.

Aside from Julia's rather angry scene-chewing, you will be dazzled by Dr. Buchanan's car (which he built and accompanies him back in time). You will also be impressed with the two doctors' initial meeting in a Swiss tavern.

The idea that Dr. Buchanan and the monster end up chasing one another through time is cool, but the end is so silly I will not go further with my synopsis. See this film, and decide for yourself. Only know that it opened the door to modern monster and comic-character films (it was released right before DICK TRACY).

One weird thing about this film is it heightened expectations that Corman would follow it up with DRACULA UNBOUND, Aldiss' next novel. Everything was set, and Corman was anxious to do the film, then...nothing. People read and re-read Aldiss' novels, waited, and...nothing. I know people who are still waiting for DRACULA UNBOUND to be released. That is the kind of impact this film had.

You may also note that I don't think of this film as a particularly good time travel piece, but it does involve time travel...it's brilliant because the film actually shows us the end of time and the end of our world.

And perhaps the film's disgusting violence portrayed here has deeper lessons to teach us, now that we are facing real monsters that in this film, Aldiss and Corman somehow foresaw.