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.

Saw the film and thought that it was fairly interesting. It was entertaining and kept relatively close to the mythos of the various characters involved (Vampire, Werewolf and Frankenstein's monster.) The special effects were okay and the makeup was okay as well, with a minor problem I had with Franstein's creature. The makeup for actor Peter Crombie I felt didn't convey the kind of 'fear' of what the monster should have. He looked more or less like an old wino or junkie with scars; Fairly harmless looking (aside from some metallic bolts on his forehead). If they were attempting to make the monster appear benign and non lethal, then they succeeded. Also, he should have appeared a bit taller I think. He seemd to be the same height as "Fernando", the semi blind character he befriends. (How tall is Pete Crombie anyway?) other than that, it's a pretty good film with enough chills to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Anyone who liked Kindred The Embraced should like this mini-series. I found the themes to be somewhat similar and really enjoyed both shows. The acting and story line were very professional and interesting. I consider House of Frankenstein 1997 to be a 'keeper' and have waited impatiently for several years for it to be released to the public.

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 ****