Rating: 
Summary: A BEAUTIFUL FILM ACHIEVEMENT!
Review: While Mary Shelley's novel asks the question of who's the monster and who's the hero, most movie adaptations make Frankenstein's creation to be the clear-cut monster. But Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of the beloved classic is the DEFINITIVE film adaptation of "Frankenstein." There is no clear-cut "good guy" or "bad guy." Robert de Niro gives a gritty yet insightful performance as the "monster." Branagh once again achieves brilliance as actor and director, crafting a visually-stunning and emotionally-charged masterpiece! Branagh fans will not be dissapointed! Grade: A+
Rating: 
Summary: OK, 'almost' Mary Shelly's Frankenstein
Review: I can't remember when I first saw a Frankenstein film, but I knew the basic story at a very early age. I used to take an ink pen, and draw scars on my wrists, pretending to be the unamed Monster from the film. I read the Classics Illustrated comic book AND the entire text of the original novel before I was 10, and over the years saw many, many adaptations of the story. Most films miss the point of the novel, and make another point instead. To me, the main point of the novel was NOT that humans shouldn't meddle in the affairs of gods. Rather, the point is that we are all shaped, for better or worse, by our interactions with each other. This is illustrated in the manner in which the unfortunate monster, at first clumsy and naive, is rejected by his own maker. Cast alone into the world, he attempts to befriend a poor family, and makes some headway so long as he remains unseen by them. His appearance always invokes a reaction of fear, so that as he matures, he loses his clumsiness and naive nature, and begins to hate the human race, simply because everyone treats him so hatefully. He attempts to convince his maker to make a companion like himself, one who will not reject him, and when this plan falls through, he seeks the ultimate revenge against his maker, telling him 'I will be with you on your wedding night'.For the most part, this film is nearer to the original novel than any I've ever seen. There are a couple of departures, most notably the unfortunate attempt by Victor to revive his dead wife, using the same methods used to create the monster. These minor detours don't change the direction of the story, and don't amount to more than a few minutes, and the film then continues and ends as the novel did.I enjoyed the performances of Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Robert DeNiro, and John Cleese (in a very straight role). DeNiro was very convincing as the creature who, although not evil when first created, became a monster because of the inhumane treatment he suffered at the hands of those who called themselves 'human'. This is the nearest I've ever seen to a true version of the novel. Overall, not quite perfect, but very, very good.Ron
Rating: 
Summary: Awful film. Ridiculous script. Skip it.
Review: Kenneth Branagh's take on MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, while faithful to the novel and featuring Robert De Niro in an interesting take upon The Creature, is still incredibly silly. It's an overdone, melodramatic, silly mess of a film.I recall, in particular, the scene where his character and his "sister" played by Helena Bonham Carter admit their love for one another. Carter looks at him and says, "Brother ...," and he replies, "Sister ...," and then together they say, "Lover!" I laughed out loud in the middle of the theater because it was ridiculously handled and delivered in such a campy manner. The Creature, played by De Niro, is more human in this adaptation and thus more sympathetic. But, of course, the ridiculous screenplay gives him some really ridiculous lines. His Creature does read and write, proving to be quite an effective, even mature, villain. But I don't like this Frankenstein or this Frankenstein's monster. I don't like them at all.
Rating:
Summary: good
Review: this is probably the only decent version of Frankenstein out there.
Rating: 
Summary: Frankenstein for speedfreaks
Review: Obviously designed to cash in on the popularity of Bram Stoker's Dracula, Frankenstein is an essay in why leading actors shouldn't try to artifically create a life for themselves as a director. Frankenstein could have been a great film - it's a fantastic story as raw material, the cast is outstanding, the sets and make-up are great and Branagh clearly had a bottomless budget - but everything tries so self consciously to be stylish that the whole artifice collapses entirely under its own weight. The film belts along as if it is on a caffeine rush - the camera circles, pans, swoops and ascends over the action like an angel, but never once stands still - rendering the already grand gestures of the cast absurd - Branagh and Helena Bonham Carter overact like there's no tomorrow - which has the effect of converting a gothic horror into a pantomime farce. The pity about all this is that this film does capture the point of Shelley's book in a way none other has: Robert De Niro plays the nameless monster very sympathetically and Branagh rightly treats him as the victim in all this. But the film - with its silly embellishments on the Frankenstein novel - undermines sophisticated statement. Worth a look, but extraordinarily disappointing. Olly Buxton
Rating:
Summary: A SWEEPING EPIC
Review: Young Victor Frankenstein is obsessed with conquering death. Such a mad scheme thoroughly takes over his life to the point where he succeeds and brings forth a new life. Ah, this creation of Frankenstein's brings more harm and pain to Victor that he ultimately regrets. Thus begins this sweeping epic of science vs. God and man vs. monster. Welcome to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Kenneth Branagh stars as the misguided doctor whose egotistical dream has him step over those he loves. Robert DeNiro superbly plays the tortured creation. His depiction of the monster's agony, isolation, tenderness and anger makes him an object of pity. The monster is believable and has our sympathy despite his grotesque condition both physically and mentally. The pace of the film and it's wonderful outdoor scenes are pleasing to both the eye and mood of the story. You are carried up into the lives of the characters as they share their emotions. One moment you are in love with Frankenstein but in the next you begin to despise this man for his selfishness and lack of taking responsibility for his creation. You have a love and horror story mixed into one which will certainly capture your attention. Of course there are some flaws. Although the screenplay stays close to the spirit of the book it does have a few deviations. Don't allow those distractions to take away from the essence and beauty of the story. Robert DeNiro is the true star of this epic. His tortured soul and thirst for revenge keeps you riveted to the screen. DeNiro then gives us a flip side of the creature. We see his emotions of love and compassion for people. Unfortunately humanity can't accept the "other". The creature is doomed to exile but not before he gets his revenge. By all means indulge yourself in viewing this sweeping film.
Rating:
Summary: Not like the book!
Review: It was alright but it was not the best because it was said to resemble the book but it really did not do justice to the book. So I kept this one short and I hope that you like it but I really did not.
Rating:
Summary: A superbly acted piece
Review: I haven't read the actual novel in years, but my roommate sat me down and had me watch this movie (I believe the words "Shirtless Kenneth Branagh" were heavily stressed) at about 2:30 the other morning, and I was blown away. It sticks closer to the novel than other versions, as far as I can remember, and while Kenneth Branagh's performance, as amazing as it was, didn't seem up to his usual intensity the two other lead actors blew me away. Robert De Niro was so adept at portraying the pathos and later sinister threat of the Creature that I forgot this was the same man I saw in "Meet the Parents" a week ago. :) And Helena Bonham Carter, always one of my favorite actresses, is responsible for carrying the last twenty minutes of the film. Purists be warned, there's a serious deviation in these last twenty minutes; but to me, it seemed to add to the story, not detract. However, they're worth watching just to see some absolutely AMAZING acting. All the horror and humanity in the story comes to a brutal, beautiful climax. This is a film that will stay with you.
Rating: 
Summary: Mildly Entertaining, But Inaccurate
Review: I read Frankenstein recently, and that was difficult enough to sit through. Then I saw the movie. My God, what have they done? There are way too many inaccuracies to be mentioned here. Walton was not supposed tyrant captain, Victor and Clerval were originally childhood friends, the DeLacy's were completely butchered, the relationship between Victor and Elizabeth was completely warped, and the fact that Elizabeth shouldn't have come to see Victor at Ingolstadt are a few of the more minor flaws. Some major flaws include Clerval not dying, Victor's second attempt at creating life (at the monster's request) not being represented accurately, and the reanimation of Elizabeth. Others still are the order of deaths (father before Elizabeth?), the nature of deaths, and the ending. To sum everything just said up: Why would a movie pride itself on being like the book when it's really nothing like it? Aside from a fairly decent DeNiro performance, there's nothing to see. If they hadn't made a big deal about being like the book, I would have enjoyed it for what it is. That is, just another Hollywood movie.
Rating:
Summary: Frankenstein...
Review: Once again, Mr. Copolla has creted another ingenious reproduction of a classic. Unlike the original Dracula & Frankenstein, these productions are more believable, as far as mannerisms, vestmentry, & situations are concerned. As usual, it is a rollercoaster of emotional stimulation. As with DRACULA, there are incredible angles & panoramas, with amazing action-scenes. It is very accurate to the book, & even starts out with the actual introduction thereof. Everything is much more down to earth, much "rawer" than the more watered-down versions of previous presentations, with the exception of the original Boris Karloff spectacular. that is. This is bacause, it sticks closer to the book, as if Mary Shelley herself were producing. When I witness the conviction & die-hard dedication of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, with his enormous visions for the progression of science, & his logical dismissal of krysto-babble, I cannot help but to admire the man. Though all of his frightened & intellectually constipated "colleagues" absurdly "warn" him of the "abominations" of his wonderous dreams & experimentaions, he drives ever-forward, at fever pitches, to accomplish that which just may be the ultimate proof that it is finally Man who is the brain of god, through his modifications of Nature. Inevitably, as the movie progressed, I found Myself hearing echoings of Dr. LaVey's voice speaking of Artificial Human Companions, & how the future shall be inundated with them, as the subhuman populace declines ----- thank SATAN! They have just enough intelligence to serve & entertain without complaint or self-righteous moralistic rhetoric. We certainly would not want a repetition of what we see in horror movies, of creations becoming too smart & conquoring the world. As for re-animation, which indeed IS possible, either by Necromancy &/or Future Science, much care must be taken in the formative periods. For example, Victor Frankentein's creation was struck very forcefully upon the cranium when he was barely concious ----- a very bad mistake. That brilliant mind was damaged because of it, inasfar as fascillitating abrupt violent tendencies as an uncontrolled impulse, rather than stablized rationale. Without such neuro-trauma, the creation may have been very well more amiable & adaptable. As far as the scars are concerned, if the cosmetic appearance becomes such an issue, laser treatemnts can be administered, which erases the scarring tissue. Another point in the movie which should be addressed, is the fact that Dr. Frankenstein underwent three major emotional traumas in the sudden losses of his mother, a nephew, & finally, his beloved wife. When he pleaded to "God" with all of his heart, mind, & soul, there was no response whatsoever. So, in true Satanic form, he took matters into his own omnipotent hands, & re-animated his beloved wife back to life. The other two could not be returned, unfortunately, for the procedure had not yet been perfected. But they were not a total loss. for they served as the daemonseeds of divinity, & as cathartic agents, to purify the Mind from the ridiculous limits imposed by inferior xian morales, which are meant to keep the lower man in line, NOT the Higher, He who MAKES the rules, rather than blindly following, as in BLINDLIGHT. When his eyes were at last opened, he became relentless in his persuits ----- & to proven success. Most unfortunate, however, at the time there were not the cosmetic techniques to fully restore & rebeautify his bride, so she self-destructed. The single most valuable lesson to be learned from Dr. Frankenstein's efforts & experiments, is to learn from his mistakes, & take great care not to repeat them, in order to save yourself from the hardship he underwent. The character of Dr. Victor Frankenstein is certainly one to be admired, as His heart burned fiercely with the Black Flames of Satan. He is an archetype representative of the iconoclast & the rebel, an intellectual renegade, to be always remembered.
|
