MovieChat Forums > Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound (1990) Discussion > Far better than it is given credit for.

Far better than it is given credit for.


The story and makeup effects are a little iffy, but I think Corman directed quite well, it gives a real sense of what he could do. (How long did he give himself to make this, by the way?)

reply

I agree with you. I think this movie is very clever but perhaps too clever for its own good though. The mixing of several "un-believable" elements was very watchable and the movie also excelled in creating philishopical points that echo from the books the movie borrows from but also adds to them.

reply

How is the DVD?

Kramer: ...he was very impressed with what I do.
Elaine: What you do? You don't do anything!

reply

I totally agree. I didn't mind the makeup, but some of the digital effects were a bit cheesy (though less so for 1990). It was campy at times – as we've come to expect from Roger Corman – but never boring. This is a thoughtful take on the Frankenstein story – one that literature fans would probably enjoy. I sure did.

reply

It's a great little movie with an interestingly bonkers story (the kind I like) but sadly it was made too early. Sfx weren't really capable of bringing the book to life in 1990. Not convincingly anyway. If it was made now with care & affection it could be a classic!

--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime

reply

[deleted]

I think Corman was a victim of his own success. The movie watching public were expecting the usual low budget affair, 'borrowing' from other, bigger budget movies. As a result this movie slid by under the radar.


You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!

reply

I don't understand why this movie has such bad ratings. It is really very entertaining and believable. I give it an 8 --and a nine just to balance out all the idiosos.

reply

[deleted]