An audacious final film from Roger Corman, Frankenstein Unbound is mad, messy and strangely mesmerising, writes DAVID SAUNDERSON
TITLE: Frankenstein Unbound
RELEASED: 1990
DIRECTOR: Roger Corman
CAST: John Hurt, Raul Julia, Bridget Fonda, Jason Patric, Michael Hutchence, Nick Brimble
Review of Frankenstein Unbound 1990
Released in 1990, Frankenstein Unbound was the final directorial effort from the legendary Roger Corman, his first film in nearly two decades and, fittingly, his last.
A man whose name is stitched into the DNA of low-budget horror cinema, Corman here crafts something part monster movie, part sci-fi oddity, part historical fantasy.
And while it’s undeniably flawed, it’s also irresistibly fun.
Based on Brian Aldiss’s novel of the same name, the film sends John Hurt’s futuristic scientist back to 1817, where he encounters not only Victor Frankenstein (a thunderous Raul Julia), but also Mary Shelley herself (played by Bridget Fonda).
What follows is a genre-smashing fever dream of time rifts, literary legend and existential horror.
Though made in 1990, the film has a distinctly 1970s Corman vibe — all hazy lighting, odd pacing and budget-conscious effects.
It feels more like a high-concept made-for-TV movie than a theatrical release, and in many ways, that’s exactly its charm.
The sets are sparse, the tech is laughably retro-futuristic, and the special effects wouldn’t look out of place in Space: 1999.
But if Frankenstein Unbound feels cheap, that’s because it is — and Corman was a master of doing more with less.
That slightly rickety feel is part of the nostalgic joy for horror fans who grew up on drive-in double bills and late-night creature features.
One of the real treats here is the astonishingly good cast.
John Hurt, as always, brings gravitas to even the most bonkers material.
Raul Julia’s Frankenstein is intense, erratic and absolutely captivating.
Julia delivers every line as if it were Shakespeare, and it’s glorious.
Bridget Fonda adds a gothic elegance to Mary Shelley, who finds herself in an eerie, almost metafictional love triangle with both Hurt’s time-traveller and her own literary creation.
It’s a testament to Corman’s clout that he could attract this calibre of talent.
How he convinced them to step into such a wild narrative remains one of the film’s great mysteries.
The creature makeup — well, let’s just say it’s an acquired taste.
More opera mask than stitched flesh, the Monster looks like he’s had a bad run-in with a Victorian plastic surgeon.
But in the context of Frankenstein adaptations, it fits right in.
There’s no shortage of strange takes on the Monster over the years, and this is just another fascinating outlier in the long lineage of cinematic reimaginings.
Add to that a script that veers from philosophical musings to full-blown absurdity, and you’ve got a film that’s as unhinged as it is ambitious.
Critics were split at the time — some praised its ambition, others wrote it off as incoherent.
Rotten Tomatoes sits at a middling 50%, with reviewers calling it everything from “cheerfully idle” to “abysmal”.
But amongst cult film fans, Frankenstein Unbound holds a strange appeal.
It’s mad, mishandled and sometimes mesmerising — an overlooked experiment that dares to be different.
And in a genre that’s seen more than its fair share of lifeless retreads, that daring counts for something.
Frankenstein Unbound might not be a masterpiece, but it’s a fascinating oddity — part love letter to literature, part sci-fi meltdown and entirely Roger Corman.
Yes, it feels like a relic from an earlier era.
Yes, it’s sometimes baffling.
But it’s also imaginative, inventive and never boring.
And let’s be honest: Corman is a god.
He gave us this final, unbound farewell — and like the Monster itself, it might be a stitched‑together mishmash, but it’s alive in all the best ways.
Tell us your thoughts about Frankenstein Unbound 1990 in the comments section below!
