Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A Major Disappointment

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

If you're looking for some cheap "scares", then go back to the original Universal horror flicks of the 1930's, 40's and 50's when at least in those days they had available good actors to play the parts. This "made for TV" version was a complete and total waste of time. When I first tuned into it, I just naturally assumed that it was going to be a continuation or "remake", and hopefully on the same standards, as the originals from years gone by. No way Jack! The acting, the story and direction, if you can call it that, are all null and void here. It's as if a high school drama club was attempting to put on a Halloween show and they had a total budget of $3.23. The lady news reporter is totally without the sympathy of Lon Chaney's "Larry Talbot" wolf man. The Frankenstein Monster in this is a joke that was rejected by the Three Stooges. And the "Dracula" character is someone who looks like he tried out for the "Godfather"...and obviously didn't get the part. What a stinko pic! This mess is not even up to "Ed Wood" standards. So what was Universal thinking of? Was this just some lame way of promoting their "Universal Studios" theme park in Florida? In the future, leave well enough alone.

This film was a great multi-monster film! For once, it doesn't have Dracula being the main vampire-or just one main werewolf. Peter Crombie does a great portrayal of Frankenstein's monster-this is probably the one of the best films portraying the monsters in modern times. The plot is unique, and the effects are refreshing. It carries the traditional love triangle well, and it lives up to the monster being an intelligent multi-dimensional character rather than a strangling figure who can't speak or barely think. It's an interesting movie that can entertain and keep you on the edge of your seat. It's occasionally played on the Sci-Fi channel if you ever want to watch it (that's the only channel I've seen it on after it first premiered).Sincerely, Exchronos

MORD39 RATING: 0 (of ****)I was happy to think that perhaps our old dear creatures from the wonderful Universal days would return in the nineties to breathe some life into the dead horror genre. Boy, was I mistaken.HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1997) is dumb, comical, and a travesty. It does not deserve to bear the title of its classical 1944 counterpart.Boy, is it over!

If fiction's three deadliest predators of man (Frankenstein's Monster, vampires, and werewolves) were loosed upon modern L.A., what would happen? This well-done miniseries attempts to answer that question. The results are a pretty lively horror film, with excellent special effects, good makesup, and a terrific cast. I'm surprised they didn't send this one to the theaters...all three and a half hours of it. Hey....it could have passed as a horror film's "Titanic."What really makes it work it the fact that they don't resurrect the traditional monsters of the old Universal films, but the actual literary beasts. The Frankensten Monster is straight from the book, against both humans and vampires in an effort to meet his own deadly agenda. The werewolves and vampires also closly follow their incarnations from ancient folklore, representing evil incarnate. Together, these three kings of Undead manage to make an exceptional made-for-TV effort. Just one question: Where was the Mummy's Curse?*** out of ****