Rating: 
Summary: I love it
Review: This movie is so great. It has been the best movie I have seen in a LONG time. I can't believe I had never heard of it until now. It was definatly worth 4 hours of my life to see such a great film. DeNiro was great...and I can't believe the director starred in it! Damn...it was just...good!
Rating:
Summary: Science is evil if it wants to go beyond death
Review: This film is the story of the revenge of a « son » against his « father ». The son, who does not have a name, is the creature created by Dr Frankenstein in his wildest research. He plays God and he is punished like a plain criminal. The book is thus ethical. Yet two elements are disquieting. First the raw materials used by Dr Frankenstein to create his creature keep the memory of the people they come from. His hands are the hands of a criminal, so he remains a criminal and he kills out of habit. His brain is the brain of a university professor, so he retains his education, culture and skills. But, second point, the main question is about the responsibility of a « father » towards his « son ». The father gives life and even a whole lot of potentials. But he has the fundamental responsibility to educate the « son », to tell him what to do with his potentials. Dr Frankenstein evades this responsibility and thus has to be punished for it. The people he loves are killed by the creature because the creature suffers in his absolute and cursed solitude. The Doctor finally dies as the result of his guilt because of his impossibility to kill his creature and to repair the damage done by this creature of his. The final scene is essential : the creature will die on the artic sea of ice by burning himself along with his dead « father » on a pyre of purification. So, the decision to go home from the captain of the ship that finds them is also symbolical of the possibility to go back to normal life when ungodly scientists and ungodly creatures are destroyed, when the road to unethical research is closed, when it is finally clear that one has to abide by the ethics of humanity. This is not rooted in any particular religion or religious vision, but only in the debate about medicine : to go beyond the limits of doomed life, hence beyond death, or just to preserve life against death. This debate is essential. Dr Jacques COULARDEA, Paris Universities II and IX.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the biggest overblown pieces of trash!
Review: After watching, say 40 mintues of this film on TNT, I literally wanted to slit my wrists. Director/Actor Kenneth Branagh makes Freddie Francis look like Orson Welles, who Directed the dreadful "The Evil of Frankenstein". But guess what, for dreadful it is no more, for I have found a film that literally trashes the Frankenstein myth to the max, at the same time making the viewer convolse as one witnesses what has to be the biggest cardnial sin on cellioud to hit film. The Direction and acting is uninspired to the max, the narative flow and story looks as though it went through the blender, and the actors, and that ecspecially of Kenneth Branagh, CAN'T ACT FOR BEANS!-heck beans can act better than him. His Baron Frankenstein looks as though he has emerged from the school of girly scientists, any moment I was waiting for Peter Cushing to come on the set, and beat some sense into him, and take back the part which is so rightfully his! Just as much as his acting sucks, so does his Direction, which is probably just as bad, if not even worse. Branagh must have been on speed, becasue thats how sure heck the movie moved, the camera never stopped moving, adding no drama, or build up what so ever--that and the fact he doesn't seem to know what "composing in the frame" means, it's like he told his camera man to huttle about the actor in every scene, even if he woud have to hit the actor in the face with the lense. The story is told in a very bland , confusing, and muddled fashion as it moves through the usual hocus-pocus Frankenstein reworking, showing not a bit of flair, subtley, or even emotional warmth, through it's hoeky, high speed escpades as Victor Frankenstein creates man, abandons him, ect ect, in such a flat fashion, one wonders why they even bothered making the film in the first place. Aside from all the story hokum, and bad acting and direction....there is at least one sole redeemer of this extreamly bad film,(surprised, huh) And that is Robert De Niro's powerhouse performance as the Monster, who more than anybody else came the closet to the genious of Boris Karloff's portrayal, De Niro's performance gave the film it's much needed emotional boost, and squarly carrys the film from it's total dismemberment. More than anything, this film is a perfect example of how much Hollywood has changed, and it's view of the public. It's a money scam, thats all, it's just one big film "deal". The bit of artistic merit that once prevaded Hollywood's horror films is no longer in exsistent. It seems perfectly to say that no other film Director will reach the height of artistry or ever conquor the Frankenstein myth as effectivly or sucessfully as James Whale and Terence Fisher.Rating: 1 1/2 out of 5 Grade: D 71%
Rating: 
Summary: Actually 4 and a 1/2
Review: I don't know about you people but this was a pretty good movie but some flaws.The film was too fast I mean the camera would not stand still and it made the film seem soo fast it was like you put it in and then it was over just like that even though the film is 123 minutes.The love scene was just like any other scene in the film it seemed like Victor was on a schedule or something.Make monster,go back home greet family,go face creature,get married and make love to her.The film should have taken its time it should have had long moments just like in Bram Stoker's Dracula in which this film is a companion with.It should have had long slow more talky moments the film should have been longer it was all too quick.The score is very good too.Maby Kenneth Branagh should have just directed it and not played Victor as well I don't know.The film is good and bad its good on the outside but if you pay attention to the film itself its got quite a bit of poorness to it,but beside all that theres also lots of neat things to look at this also is one of the very very extremely few Frankenstein films that stays true to Shelley's original novel I mean the very first 1931 Frankenstein film was really not at all true to the novel at all,but this one is just like Bram Stoker's Dracula in which this one is produced by Dracula's director Francis Ford Coppola.This movie reminds me of Exorcist 2 The Heretic cause in that film they had all the best people to help make it and great actors but it didn't come out well somehow but it wasn't terrible.Anyway costumes are good sets are good and the Oscar nominated make-up is terrific.Anyway this is a pretty good film inspite all of the negative things that come along with,but its good none the less so see it you might actually like it.
Rating:
Summary: Kenny's vanity video
Review: Forget this one. Unbelievably cheesy from beginning to end. Frankenstein challenging the lightning on the mountaintop with Elizabeth was too hilariously acted and written for words. And although I'm sure a lot of female viewers will disagree with me, I think Kenny's numerous "topless" scenes were gratuitous nudity! All kidding aside, Branagh and Bonham-Carter have zero chemistry together (though I don't think it's HER fault), and the film lacks any real dramatic punch. Warm up your VCR and pop in Boris Karloff, Colin Clive,Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee if you want to see a real Frankenstein film.
Rating: 
Summary: "I miss the sport coat"
Review: The title of this review is a line from Jerry Seinfeld referring to this film. And although Kenneth Branaugh's 'Frankenstein' doesn't really owe that much to the Karloff classic, it still makes one wish it contained the element that the previous one strived for...horror. Not to say that 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' is a horror movie; I just can't tell what kind of movie it is at all. It's definately a stylish period piece, with a lot of credit going to the style. Rather than go for a bloody (although it has some) thriller-horror movie - which it was blatantly advertised as - the film is rather an exploration of one man's ambition and obsession... I think. Or it's the story of a monster who longs to be a man, who longs to find acceptance among those who fear and hate him... I think. The problem here is that neither Dr. Frankenstein (Branaugh) nor the Monster (played by Robert DeNiro in what I thought was a good performance) are very well thought out roles. Is the Doctor the hero of the movie? The villain for creating and abandoning the Monster? Neither? And what about the Creation himself? Should we hate him for his selfish murderous actions? Pity him and his quest? Both? Neither? Frankly by the end I didn't care for any of them. I did, however, enjoy all the actor's performances. Branaugh tends to over-act, but generally handled the "role" well. Helena Bonham-Carter and Ian Holm also appear, and are as enjoyable as ever. If your in the mood for revisionist horror, I'd say pick this one up for the sets and actors alone, but definately pair it up with "Bram Stokers Dracula", what I feel to be the superior film. Pretty costumes, but not enough growl's in the monsters.
Rating:
Summary: An Visual Feast
Review: I gave 5 stars for this film.Because this film contains really excellent scenes and visual feast.Robert De Niro and Kenneth Branagh have been showing perfect performance.The director is very good and the scenario is flawless.This film is excellent in every respect.
Rating:
Summary: Good on creature's feelings, wanting in elements.
Review: When I read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in the 11th grade, I envisioned everything in the novel unfolding in my mind like a movie. I saw deeply moving characters and a moving drama that captures all the romanticism and transcendentalism that Shelley conveyed through her characters and settings, a movie that would stir up great emotion. "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein," Kenneth Branagh's film treatment of the famed classic, falls just short of these qualifications. The movie, in itself, does have a good deal of the novel's plot and suspense, but in my opinion, it misses the mark in capturing all the elements of the novel, while sometimes seeming forced and aggressive in places where it is not needed. The story, like the novel, begins with the northbound whaling vessel being tossed in the waves and finally surrounded by a frozen sea of ice. The ship's captain, Robert Walton, will stop at nothing to pursue his destination, the North Pole, in order to secure his place among the world's greatest discoverers. Putting his crew to work in freeing the ship, the group of frigid men is frightened by the howlings of something that can only be inhuman, and are soon after set upon by a man travelling the ice. In the captian's quarters, he reveals his name, Victor Frankenstein, and his story to Walton. His story involves his pursuit of a cure for death, after the bloody death of his mother during the birth of her youngest son. His father, a doctor, is relieved to learn that Victor wishes to follow in his footsteps, but once Victor reaches college, he spends his days arguing the existence of life and death with his professor. He makes an acquaintance with a Professor Waldman, a man who once came too close to accomplishing Victor's very dream. From here, Victor goes on his gruesome quest for the facts, the equipment, and (no surprise) the right parts. He constructs a man made from men, parts gathered from different poverty-stricken areas of the town. But once he brings it to life, he realizes the importance of Waldman's oppositions, and when the creature realizes that he will never gain the acceptance and tolerance of anyone in the human race, he threatens Frankenstein with his life and the safety of those he holds dear. It must be said of this movie that the emotion of the creature has never been better put to film. The old versions produce the nuts-and-bolts creature, which is merely meant as a simple scare, while this film chooses to go with the various descriptions of the novel in creating a person made from the body parts of others. To call him a monster is a misgiving; all he merely yearns for is the love of another, whether it be friendship or passion, in order to make himself feel the happiness and joy that he sees in the faces of those he spies upon, particularly his Master, Victor. The emotions and feelings of the creature are clearly conveyed here, his cries filling the canvas with sadness, rage, and regret throughout. The movie is also a visually stunning work of art, like a painting that springs to life before your eyes. It clearly captures the aristocracy and the poverty of the 1700's, and takes the added advantage of contrasting the two of them whenever possible by places high class people in impoverished situations and settings (Victor's slovenly appearance during the creation of his masterpiece is a prime example). Also filmed in the high peaks of the Alps, during the winter and spring, this gives the movie a sense of scope, a sense of space that the characters get lost in. The way in which the plot takes a more direct approach to the science involved in Victor's life is a bit of a disappointment, though. The novel is mysterious in that it never dives into the way in which the creature comes to life (one night when Victor is asleep, he awakens from a nightmare to see the creature standing before him). The movie's portrayal of the creature's "birth" is highly energetic, yet it loses that added sense of mysticism and eerieness because we actually see the process involved in bringing him to life. There are quite a few little plot details added as well, such as Victor's acquaintance with Waldman. In the novel, he is not mentioned more than once or twice, while in the novel, he becomes more of a model for Victor's impending actions. Also, be sure to look out for a sharp change in the ending, which seems a bit of an attempt to give the story a better reason for Victor leaving after the creature to the North. The main character who is played out with perfection is the creature, portrayed by Robert De Niro. Some were surprised by this casting choice, but it is clear that De Niro knows what he is doing. He is able to authentically act out each different emotion of the creature, one of his most notable performances being in his confrontation with Victor after many years. Kenneth Branagh chose to play the title role, vividly bringing to life the character of Victor. However, his performance does tend to seem pushed for instead of naturally acted, his dialogue sounding unnatural and forced at times. Nonetheless, he never fails to impress, and ultimately adds to the experience. Helena Bonham Carter is a hit as the strong-willed Elizabeth, who never leaves her love's side, even when she learns that he is in danger. Her acting is powerful, moving, and ranks up with every other performance she has done. The sum it up, "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is not a winner when compared to the novel's use of romantic and transcendental elements, though it does have redeeming qualities. The creature's portrayal is haunting and true, while the visuals are breathtaking and visceral. You may find yourself feeling let down by the movie, but I promise, repeated viewings do tend to add a little to the experience.
Rating:
Summary: Monster Turkey
Review: It constantly surprises me that after the original excellent "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein", any filmmaker would dream of remaking Frankenstein. Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein" was clearly the best. Compared to that skilled piece of 'hip hop,' which remixed the original elements into a story full of comedy and pathos, this turkey is a dodgy cover version sung by a drunk in a bar. As for the actors, most of the smaller parts seem to have been thrown to smug young types who have just graduated from drama school - with many bland youngsters given character roles they can only soil like excited puppies! The stars, on the other hand, seem to be cramming this acting job into their busy schedules of TV talk shows, book signings, or supermarket openings. Breathless and with one eye constantly on the finishing line, they seem to be having out-of-character experiences. The pace cracks on at a terrible speed in a desperate attempt to flag up some excitement, with Doctor Frankie running around like someone's switched his script with Jackie Chan's. We get quick rushed scenes of people running into rooms, bawling mediocre soundbites at each other, or parking their horses too far from the house so that they can run dramatically (yawn) across muddy lawns to finally exchange trite, anachronistic dialogue. This movie compounds its weaknesses by focusing on things it should skip, and skipping things it should focus on. For example, quite a lot of time is devoted to explaining how the monster was apparently taught to read by a herd of pigs! an aspect which only emphasizes the absurdity of the story. The issue of the Monster's literacy was handled much more deftly in earlier movies simply by being left a little vague. More important aspects of the storyline, however, are rendered fuzzy by Branagh's attempts to out-Shakespeare Shakespeare by cramming as many messy incidents into the story as possible with disastrous results for the movie's continuity: "Geneva!" the Monster exclaims at one point from his mountain top after some epic journey over the Alps, but of course they forget to give us the complementing view of the city below (Showing a model of 19th century Geneva was clearly outside the ego-targeted budget). The worst thing as with many modern films dabbling in the past is the incredibly anachronistic feeling, with people running around over-emoting as if they've just misplaced their Valium. As for the great love story - this is patently ridiculous as not only does Kenneth Branagh look like a shaggy dog as usual, but also the often lovely Helena Bonham-Carter does too. If they stood still for one minute, you get the feeling crows would nest in their 'romantically windswept' hair. As for Robert DeNiro, his main fault as the Monster is simply being too famous to be credible as the Monster. Unlike many of the cameo actors - friends of Kenneth who are just dropping by to don a costume, spout a few lines, and pick up a cheque - DeNiro sometimes has a look of jaded angst in his eyes that suggests he knew all along he had been tricked into making this Turkey that, Albatross-like, will hang around his neck for the rest of his life. The frantic attempt to breathe life into badly-assembled, unliving matter becomes, by the end, the perfect metaphor for the movie itself.
Rating: 
Summary: don't bother
Review: The movie was not good. Plain and simple.
|
