Nobody seems to know that this was based on a very good sci-fi novel from the early 70's by Brian Aldyss(sp?). It was a very good book and much more coherent than the movie, which cheapened it into a typical Corman drive-in programmer. Aldyss also a number of years later published a vastly inferior and unecessary sequel, Dracula Unbound.
Elvis is DEAD
Good to hear that the book is superior to it's Dracula sequel. I haven't found the book yet to read - wanted to very much after seein ght movie - but did find the sequel. Very disappointing.
shareYeah, the Dracula book wasn't as good. I believe about 20 years passed between FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (seems like I first ran across this in the 1970s) and the publication of DRACULA UNBOUND (unless I just discovered it late). Double check me on this, but I think the author spells his name Brian Aldiss.
shareThanx for the spellcheck. I think Frank. Unbound came out around '73 or '4. I first read it in high school around that time. It was somewhere in the very late 80's or early 90's that I read Dracula Unbound. Aldiss was a very old man when he wrote that and I think the juices were dry.
Elvis is DEAD
I bought the book a couple of years before the movie came out and it was so good I read it in one go-except to go to the toilet!The movie was pretty faithful to the book,but not quite as good.Just like none of the original {James Whale} Frankenstein movies are as great as the original book.
shareDracula Unbound came out in 1990, when Aldiss was 65 - not so old. He's still writing, as far as I know.
shareI agree..the novel Frankenstein Unbound is a pretty good read...the sequel, Dracula Unbound, was just horrible.
...parts of the movie work and other parts don't....for some reason, a favourite moment is a small one:..Dr. Frankenstein admiring Joe Buchanan's watch from the future as a man of science, wondering how it works.
Yes, i have to say too that the book is way better. corman did his best with the limited means he had. but the cast he got for his movie was a great cast, no doubt about it.
and if you think john hurt's hero character is unlikable in the movie, in the book he's simply detestable, a fundie christian idiot that takes an imediate dislike for Frankenstein's creature for the sole reason that it's man-made, and all rest be damned. Th ehero in the book becomes pratically a de facto psycho that mercilessly hunts a innocent for reasons that are, frankly, ridiculous!
another sequel writen by Brian Aldiss was The other Island Of Doctor Moreau, and it's a very fine read too.
"A good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes" Howard Hawks
[deleted]
I'm going to have to disagree with the source novel being "good". I'd call it a mediocre read as Aldiss waxed too Romantic (literally) with long passages dedicated to Byron and Shelley's discourse. Now if you're a fan of the Romantics then this book would be a good read but in terms of a science-fiction novel it lacked a dedication the genre.
A few criticisms of the novel that were not carried into the film (thankfully):
Victor Frankenstein is portrayed in the novel not as a genius scientist but a cowardly, myopic, whiny brat. Seriously. Corman was wise to cast Raoul Julia as a Frankenstein as Julia was able to be that cold and menacing egotistic scientist that Frankenstein should be portrayed as.
The Bodenland/Buchanan character in the novel is communicating with his wife and journal in long, mournful entries at how much he misses her and how exciting it is to be in 1700's Switzerland and how he's losing his personality. Great for fans of Romanatic period literature, bad for science fiction. John Hurt was an excellent Buchanan, especially his response when the monster asks who made Buchanan: "I don't know, God maybe..."
The monster in the novel was lackluster. The monster in the film was much more effectively portrayed as being curious and tormented and wanting answers instead of being a kiss-up to Frankenstein as he was in the book.
The ending in the book was lousy and unnecessary, Bodenland didn't have to do that. The film's conclusion was simply a better ending.
Whether you love the film or think the book is better, seeing John Hurt and Raoul Julia on screen, together, with a great creature, I don't think we'll get this type of film again.
Im about 5 pages away from finishing the book (where his car gets stuck). Im really liking the book. Ive liked every Aldiss Ive read (Barefoot in the Head is practically unreadable though). It seems every Aldiss book gets all surreal towards the end
I havent seen the movie yet...in fact I was just informed about it 5 minutes ago. I had seen the cover for it before, but never made the connection
http://www.imdb.com/list/coi2SOsZMPI/ - Favorite Films Of Every Year 1900-present
For me the movie offered a more satisfying conclusion even though I don't think that he had to kill the monster(s).
shareI finished it last night. It was kinda sad that he killed the creatures. They shouldnt have been made in the first place and they (well, he) were responsible for 2 deaths and indirectly responsible for another. It took forever for the monster to die, and I guess its sad because he very intelligent. Ive never read or seen any other Frankenstein-related books or movies (save for Young Frankenstein) so I dont know if the monster is "normally" portrayed as intelligent or not, but I do think that Victor definitely had to go as he really didnt have any conscience at all.
http://www.imdb.com/list/coi2SOsZMPI/ - Favorite Films Of Every Year 1900-present
One question I kept asking myself throughout the book and the film was "why didn't anyone try to talk to the creature?"
I would have thought that Bodenland/Buchannan would have been smart enough to try to talk to the creature, possibly befriend it, but instead...they kill it/them.
I liked the book as a point of reference but I prefer the film. Usually I prefer the book, but I liked the film, it took the best parts of the book and gave an entertaining ride.
Well then I definitely look forward to the film. Its not available on Netflix so Ill have to see if the library can get it. And Im the same way with the book:movie ratio. Most of the time I prefer the book, but in a few rare cases such as with The Quiet Earth, definitely see the movie because its awesome, but the book is a joke (AND super HTF and expensive!)
http://www.imdb.com/list/coi2SOsZMPI/ - Favorite Films Of Every Year 1900-present
If this movie is based on a book, it would be helpful if they updated this bit of trivia:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099612/trivia?tr=tr0604572
It makes it sound as if the movie came up with the title from other sources. I will try to find the book now. Thanks to the OP for pointing this out.
I actually read and had just finished the story.When I first picked it up, I was a little cynical, because how could anyone tell the FRANKENSTEIN story without bastardizing the hell out of it? I'm glad that I have had the opportunity to do so, and I highly recommend it. It is a very intelligently written story. For me, the story of UNBOUND could be best described as both a tribute to, as well as an interrogation of, the original FRANKENSTEIN story by Mary Shelley. From all appearances, a lot of effort was made to capture not only the settings, but also provide explanations for characters' mannerisms, speech patterns, relationships, and so on. Aldiss' story even went so far as to feature the very same quotes that Shelley herself used in her novel.
What I found fascinating about the novel is that it provided an indepth analysis of the source material that it's roughly based on, showing how pivotal a role it had played not only in science fiction, but also in today's society.
Admittedly, I saw the film before reading the story. I absolutely hated it. The setting made no sense. What the hell was Victor Frankenstein doing in Italy? Why was Mary Shelley there, along with Percy and Lord Byron? Everything about it was crap. Even worse, the Creature, rather than being something made from sown body parts, looked like one of those creepy troll dolls from the Nineties with its red hair.
My apologies for the long rant. This is the third movie adapted by Corman based on a novel that I enjoyed, so I'm a little pissed off at him for ruining yet another gem of a story with his crap films.