Rating: 
Summary: 9 thumbs up? What the hell is that?
Review: If you have read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and want to laugh, make sure you watch the 1994 release of Frankenstein. The plot is 60% different from the already great book and the added scenes are almost totally bad and pathetic. The only good addition is the scene where Elizabeth is recreated and realizes this and lights herself on fire. Then, she starts a 'well-lit' romp through the house. The best part of this movie is the fire, in my opinion, and that's where this film should go. I believe that almost the entire movie, save the original creation scene, was humorous and incomparable to the book. It has a great score (Patrick Doyle), great acting talent (Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter) and great costuming. If not for the sub par plot, the film would have been great. In rating this book I will choose to use a great conversation from "The Simpsons." Editor: "9 thumbs up? What the hell is that?"
Homer: "You're right, it's crap...1.5 thumbs up it is..."
Rating: 
Summary: THE CLOSEST!!!!
Review: A lot of people say that this film is the closest in comparison to the novel, I beg to differ!! Yes, the movie does meet some of the standards set by the novel. Yet, a lot of the movie is bad compared to the book. There is a lot added to the movie to make it more dramatic. Like when Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) is killed and Victor (Kenneth Branagh) takes her body and gives her life again (which is what started all the trouble in the first place with the creature). Then she has to chose between Victor and the Creature (Robert de Niro), Finally she breaks a lamp over her head and sets herself and the house on fire. The movie has some good effects and good actors, but the following of the story is bad! I would definitely recommend reading the book before even wasting your time with this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Boring, Boring, Boring!!!!
Review: This is quite simply the most boring movie I have ever seen. The actors (all pretty good) struggle with a tedious script and a banal storyline. Bring back Boris Karlof........please!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN
Review: WEll, to put it simple, this movie is amazing. I loved the acting. DeNiro, damn! What can I say. He's great in it. They're all great in it. That guy from Animal House, why doesn't he get more rolls? He can really act. Totally impressed. Great sets and locations, too. It was romantic in a very bizarre way. I really don't care for mushy films but this was very mismerizing. I totally bought it. I also liked the camera work. *SIDENOTE* I never even heard of this film. When I rented it I thought it was this other Frankenstein movie (which I just learned is) called 'Frankenstein Unbound'. I didn't see all of UNBOUND so I thought I would rent it, (ten years later) MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN was the version I thought I had seen some of over ten years ago. To my delight and surprize ('cause I kept waiting for a time travel scene, that never happened-those who have seen FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND will know what I'm talking about) I kept thinking, 'I don't remember it being this good'. This movie is brilliant. I ran out and bought it and am glad to say it is a diffenate part of my DVD collection. EXCELLENT MOVIE, try it, you won't be let down. This movie is underappreciated, at best! Great acting, great sets, great effects and great story. What more could you ask for?
Rating: 
Summary: Best Scene:
Review: When the monster is chased off by the young man, after trying to befriend the family he's watched and learned from for about a year, he goes off and cries, it is one of deNiro's best scenes ever, and it adds so much to the monster, its sick and pathetic to the fullest, and confusing.
Overall, its a little gory to the point of sillyness, and gets ridiculous with the killing and bringing back to life of Frankenstein's girl, and then the re-killing of her, and all that other stuff that was not from the novel.
Brannagh's Frankenstein is pretty good, a little too jolly during the jolly times, though that's importnat. Overall, pretty good.
Rating: 
Summary: What a Monster...
Review: The moments before the creature is created, Dr. Victor Frankenstein removes his shirt. He stealthily maneuvers around his laboratory like a satyr with his sweat glistening in the warm lighting. The mechanics of his laboratory also move with beauty and urgency. The camera adds additional energy... with its constant fluid motion. Add Patrick Doyle's bombastic, sweeping score and suddenly the camera, equipment and Doctor are performing a... beautiful and intriguing dance that grabs you and doesn't let go. Unfortunately for the film viewer, those 2 and a half minutes are bookended by almost 2 hours of less than promising material. Francis Ford Coppola, fresh off of the equally pretentious BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, asked Branagh to helm this creature feature using a script more closely related to the original novels. And yes, this flick is much closer to the source material. But, that is more of a hindrance than a help. It certainly does not make it a better movie. The screenplay quite often resorts to coincidence for resolution (The monster happens to be in the woods where Victor's brother happens to appear and happens to drop a locket which happens to open so the creature can happen to see his nemesis' polaroid peeking out...). Robert DeNiro, one of my favorite actors gives a phoned in performance here, resorting to childish rage as the only way to separate himself from the beautiful scenery. But, after Kenneth Branagh finished chewing it, there was very little scenery left. Not surprisingly, his performance is over-the-top. As director his overall intention of the film was to follow that lead... Many others in the cast didn't get that memo. Tom Hulce is in the film quite often and puts in one of the most forgettable performances in recent memory. And Helena Bonham Carter who even looked gorgeous in a monkey suit in 2001's PLANET OF THE APES, fares far worse in this film when she must choose between 2 potential lovers... There are a couple bright spots here in there. John Cleese is unrecognizable, and quite a delight in a serious role. The photography, musical score and scenic design are top drawer, right in line with Branagh's vision. But, outside of that, Branagh's creature unfortunately has very little life. The DVD has a good video transfer and 5.0 Sound. But, with the exception of theatrical trailers, is left barren.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Movie - Brings the book to life
Review: Branagh's Frankenstein is, quite simply, one of the most beautiful and entertaining movies I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. The acting is great, bringing the characters to life. Some say they are over the top, this just demonstrates that they do not understand Shelley's novel and the style in which it was written. This movie captures the gothic character of the novel both in character and in cinematography. Each shot is designed to bring out the book's mood and atmosphere. The only negative thing I can possibly think of to say is that it was not completely true to the book, but what adaptation is? Bravo, Branagh.
Rating:
Summary: Dreadful yet rather fun
Review: This is the sort of film that can be panned on just about every count, yet is enjoyable to relax in front of (perhaps on Halloween night) as one consumes popcorn, Milk Duds, and the other enjoyable "junk food," into which category this film fits neatly. For literary types such as myself (who naturally blush to admit that they find this film rather fun), I suppose the fascination is in imagining what a fine concept the screen writer's had in this adaptation. Finding out more about Victor's motivation to create life, seeing how totally it dominated him, musing over how fascinating it would be for an adventurous medical student to meet a professor who combines ancient philosophy with modern science, seeing the blind man understand the sad plight of the monster - all could have been excellent devices for fleshing out Mary Shelley's often plodding tale. Unfortunately, the ideas which could have been fine seasoning were laid on with too heavy a hand. The key word in this film is "excess" - over-acting, hysterics intended as dramatic impact, bizarre scenes, uproar out of proportion to the action. After a time, the memories of Victor's mother's death, which, combined with the excessive enthusiasm for new dimensions of medicine, which made sense in the early scenes seem macabre, with the unlikely conclusion coming forth that the death of the child born to her was the inevitable result of the chain of events her death set in motion. I rated it as a "three" because what could have been interesting drama and failed has some entertainment value as high camp.
Rating:
Summary: the critics obviously don't know shelley's work
Review: yes this movie doesn't match up to the classic films, however, this version does follow the book very well. While the other versions of this movie prefer the the 1950s mad scientist, this film used shelley's frankenstein. this film contained the fears of shelley, and not necessarily the fears of the audience. this film is unappreciated but thats ok.
Rating:
Summary: Precious Little to do with Mary Shelley
Review: Yep, this is another one of those "Completely Faithful to the Book" well, no not really situations. If Kenneth Branagh were any more of a ham, he'd be stuck through with cloves and topped with pineapple. He is just terrible! The movie begins, like the novel, with a wooden ship out there in the icy waters. They take on a mysterious stranger, like the novel. But then Kenneth Branagh fairly shouts at the captain, " I..Am...Victor..........FRANKENSTEIN!" Like, why would that mean anything to the captain, y'know? It's not as if he said he was Napoleon or some other indisputably famous person any seafaring man would have heard of before. And Robert DeNiro--what's with the baseball stitching on your head? No, it's just an unholy mess. You'd be much better off with Colin Clive and his monster, Boris Karloff.
|
