In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This 1992 version of "Frankenstein" tries to mix up the familiar story by changing a lot of details, with mixed results. Some of the changes are made for budgetary reasons, other stylistically and some just baffled my mind. One of the changes made is that the monster (Randy Quaid) is not pieced together from bodies collected from slaughter houses and dissection rooms, but is created in what I can only describe as a "duplication chamber". Also notable is that the creature learns to speak English by befriending a blind old man in the woods. The old man thinks it to be a foreigner that does not speak English and teaches him how to talk. It's an acceptable substitution for spying on a family that is teaching one of its members to read and write English, like in the original story. Some changes, like creating a psychic bond between the creature and Victor Frankenstein (Patrick Bergin) are problematic, create plot holes and huge leaps of logic in the story. It's too bad that it was handled poorly because if it had been executed well it could have been interesting. I also have to admit that while the duplication chamber thing is kind of a neat special effect, it doesn't work. The main problem I had with it was that because the monster starts off as a perfect clone of the doctor there had to be convoluted ways for the creature to become disfigured to make the rest of the story work. It just didn't lend itself well to this story.The film has some decent performances, but the plot is inconsistent in its quality and so loosely based on the novel it could almost be its own, unrelated thing. Some elements are introduced then immediately dropped or hastily discarded without much logic. Early on for example, Victor Frankenstein shows us that he is able to create entirely new species of animals by splicing a cat and a snake together and by creating a porcupine/rabbit hybrid. That entire scene comes out of nowhere and is never brought up again. I'm pretty sure it was only included to show off some special effects.Overall this 1992 film is more of a curiosity than a significant addition to the ever-growing amount of Frankenstein-related material. It might be enjoyed by hardcore fans of the book and story of "Frankenstein" that are simply looking for something different. If that's you by the way, check out "Frankenstein Conquers the World", that is one wacky "sequel" to the original novel. Unlike that film though, there isn't much remarkable about this version of "Frankenstein". At times it's hilariously bad so you can easily skip this one. (On VHS, August 31, 2012)

Director David Wickes was responsible for the horrible David Essex vanity project Silver Dream Racer. With this in mind, you could be forgiven for expecting this 1992 made-for-TV update of the oft-filmed Frankenstein story to be a somewhat trite affair. Surprisingly, this is a pretty good version of the tale. Indeed, it is actually better than the high profile Kenneth Branagh version that was released around 18 months later.Innovative scientist Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Patrick Bergin) comes up with the idea of making and animating a man. His research consumes him, and his love for the project becomes greater even than his love for his fiancée Elizabeth (Fiona Gillies) and best friend Clerval (Lambert Wilson). Eventually, Frankenstein finishes his creature and it is brought to life in the guise of a huge, disfigured monster (played with considerable emotion by Randy Quaid). It is not long before the monster escapes and heads off into the Alpine countryside. Here it spends its time spying on humans, learning what makes them tick and observing their daily lives. The monster becomes aware of the very human emotions of love and commitment, but because it is so ugly it only arouses fear and revulsion amongst normal humans. Enraged that it will never understand what it is to be loved, the monster returns and kills Frankenstein's bride Elizabeth, thereby robbing its creator of the love-of-his-life and making him share its despair. Frankenstein pursues the monster to the Arctic, where he plans to destroy it.Wickes is extremely faithful to his source novel, more so than virtually all film-makers who have gone before him. He cuts out occasional bits of Mary Shelley's narrative, and makes the odd change here and there, but on the whole this is as close to Shelley's story as a film version has ever been. Bergin is a revelation as Dr. Frankenstein. Usually a solid but unspectacular character actor, here he gives one of his best-ever performances as the ambitious scientist. On paper, Quaid sounds a terrible choice for the part of the monster (one can't help thinking of the oafish rednecks he played in movies like Moving, National Lampoon's Vacation and Independence Day), but in actual fact he is superb as the monster, registering anguish and pity from beneath layers of heavy make-up. At two hours, the film is paced well and moves briskly without sacrificing character or plot development. (Wickes had already directed two 3-hour made-for-TV films about Jack The Ripper and Dr. Jekyll And Mr Hyde, both of which were on the excessively lengthy side.) It seems surprising that this film has faded into obscurity, for it is very well-made and admirably faithful to its source book. If you are fortunate enough to find, it is well worth viewing.

There have been so many versions of this story made that it would almost seem superflous to make another, yet this is the best version that I have seen because it is the most faithful to Mary Shelly's book. I saw the classic 1931 version where Karloff was the monster and he would have been proud of Quaid's performance. People who know Randy Quaid only for his role as "Cousin Eddie" in the Chevy Chase vacation films would be astounded by his fine work here. He does a remarkable job of making the monster both scary and pitiful as society treats him so badly. He screams at Frankentstein "Why did you make me like this". The scene where he murders Frankenstein's family is the most disturbing part of the film. This is a great film and with the exception of Karloff's version, it is the best Frankenstein that I have ever seen.

With the awakening of classic monsters back onto film, such as "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "The Mummy," it's nice to see a "Frankenstein" film that manages to work nicely.This was a made-for-cable production, and it was a good attempt. A lot more faithful to the novel than other carnations (but it still freely takes its liberties ), this movie presented some new ideas that were interesting to think about. But the major change was the film's biggest disappointment: The monster was no longer a resurrected assembly of corpses, but a being cloned from Dr. Frank himself. Therefore, they can feel each other's pain and emotions. "Two parts of a single man," as the good doctor states. The twist is more like a "Jekyll and Hyde" idea, rather than the usual father and son relationship. It was a fascinating concept, but not really a good idea for a Frankenstein film claiming it is faithful to the book.Other than that, it is a top notch job. David Wickes directs with good timing and the suspense it well brought out. Bergin and Quaid are good in the leads as the doctor and the monster, and John Mills also brings in a powerful performance in a cameo as a blind man. This is worth a comparison to the much better "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," directed by Kenneth Branagh. Both have similar style and terror.***1/2 out of *****