From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Frankenstein, monstrous movies, and Monster movies
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:31:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1eeersINN9fj@agate.berkeley.edu> jacob@plasma2.ssl.berkeley.edu (Jamey Jacob) writes:
>In article <2B0A6D2A@ssd0.laafb.af.mil>, KitchenRN@SSD0.LAAFB.AF.MIL writes:
>|> . . .Frankenstein on a dog sled in the Acrtic Circle?  It's a weird idea that 
>|> probably would have been deemed utterly preposterous and tossed in the trash 
>|> if not for the person who thought of it.  That person was Mary Shelley, whose 

	[hack, slash]

>	There was a fairly faithful adaptation of Frankenstein,
>	where the creature at first looks and acts fine, and
>	then decays into the monster, eventually battling for his
>	life with his creator over a frozen sea.  I haven't seen
>	this in probably ten years.  Does anybody remember what
>	this was called and know anything else about it?  It seems
>	to have been made in the late 60's perhaps (I'm only
>	guessing) and from my vague memory seemed very good and
>	true to the novel.  The only thing I can remember about
>	the title of this film is that the opening or ending
>	credits and a rose in the background.  (How's that for
>	vague?)

	I remember it too -- I think it was called "Frankenstein: the True
Story" or something like that. It was what I first thought of when I
saw the bit about Frankenstein on a dogsled.

	However, I can GUARANTEE that it was made later than the late
60's; in fact, it was a miniseries on television, shown over several nights,
and I'm certain that it was made after 1976, since I wasn't WATCHING television
much before then.

	ON a couple of other sf-movie tangents:

	I saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" finally.

	I thought the net.reactions were a bit overblown when they first
appeared upon H2's release. 

	I was WRONG! This movie is BAAAAD! It's worse than anything I have
ever seen in my LIFE! I had to watch it to the end only in order to make
sure that unadulterated badness could be carried through for an entire
film. How in the name of all the gods did they convince Sean Connery to
DO this ... this... disaster? Hold a gun to his head?


	On another note:

	I've seen both GOJIRA vs BIOLLANTE and GOJIRA vs TAI GIDORAH 
(Godzilla vs Biollante and vs King Gidrah), and for monster movies they're
nothing short of awesome. I find Godzilla particularly impressive in one naval
combat sequence (BIOLLANTE) and in his conflicts with Gidrah.

	Overall, I rate BIOLLANTE slightly higher; GIDORAH has a longer
build-up to the battles (which, let's be honest, are the main reason we
see these films), some genuinely silly effects (which seriously detract
from the overall much-improved technical level), and some VERY large
plot holes. BIOLLANTE's main flaw lies in the very end, which is quite
mystical and somewhat out of tune with the main thrust of the film.

	However, the real star of both movies, Godzilla himself, is well
worth the viewing. He has expressions and mobility and a kind of 
threatening majesty that was lost in the aftermath of the original GOJIRA.
Both movies preserve the original hammering theme music of the King of
Monsters, improving on it with modern orchestration and sound quality.
The first real sight of Gojira in each movie (in Biollante, from the crater
into which he fell in Godzilla 1985; in Gidorah, backlit by radioactive 
glow underwater) is virtually perfect.

	
				Sea Wasp