Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Rating:
Summary: Most Faithful Adaptation Yet
Review: I have to wonder when I read reviews of this film stating with a straight face that it bears no resemblance to the book. From its beginnings with the sea captain discovering Victor Frankenstein in the arctic--which was the original framing device for Mary Shelley's novel, just as it is in the film--to the climactic confrontation between Frankenstein and his creature in the same frigid North, this is the most faithful adaptation of Shelley's novel that has ever been made. The only one that even comes close is TNT's adaptation starring Randy Quaid as the Creature, made the year before this one. Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. and Robert DeNiro as the Creature are the anchors of this film. It's good to finally see a film adaptation that remembers that the creature had the power of speech in the book, and did not grunt in monosyllables the way Karloff's monster does in Bride of Frankenstein. On the down side, Branagh does take his shirt off a bit too much in the film, and the reanimation of Elizabeth is pointless and gory. But the central theme of Victor's egocentric quest to defy death is here, as well as the metaphor of the father-child relationship between the scientist and his creation. People not familiar with the novel need to realize that part of the point of this story was that the Creature was not evil--he was made bitter and hateful by his rejection at the hands of his creator and most of the other humans he encountered. Here, as in the Shelley novel, the Creature is actually far more noble at heart than most of the more ostensibly "human" characters.

As far as fidelity to the book--within the reasonable limitations of a bigbudget Hollywood film--this is practically the only Frankenstein film that exists for me.

As far as fun and pathos, I do still highly recommend the Karloff films, particularly "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein".

Rating:
Summary: Many Of You Are Wrong
Review: 3 days ago, I saw this DVD in my friends house and he told me that he hasn't seen it it yet. That day was the last day of watching "Hamlet" in our school. We are studying Hamlet and our teachers showed it to us. 2 Years ago We also watched Othello, and I was shocked by Kenneth Branag. Hamlet made me the Fan of him. With the excitement of watching another wonderful Kenneth Branagh film, I brought it home. Next day I was alone. I closed the curtains and turned up the volume, and started the film. I was shocked at the end. This film was more than I expected. After that I tooked my Frankenstein book, which I had never had started for 5 years, and started to read it. I discovered that it was far more different than the film. But WHO CARES?? We are not looking at the same version as the film. I look at the quality of work done and influence one me!(That I am still in the mood of film). Some reviews, even the top 500 reviewer, made some mistakes. 1) Kenneth Branagh is not English, He is Irish. 2) The influence of the film refering to the captain Quinn is that he is in the same situation as Frankenstein. Going on the way he believes or going on the way as he can be alive. 3) Those kind of stiches were the only kind at those times. You cannot think of an aesthetic stich on the Monster. 4) How can any horror film can be suitable for children. No one should care for it. Cast is terrific, the film is good, and the effects are well designed. I am sad because of people don't like this shocking film. The only way you can make a comment of the film is to watch it.

Rating:
Summary: "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein? Nope.
Review: I read the book fairly recently. I loved it. Out of compulsion, I felt the need to see one of the movies.

I selected this one because it was made by the same people who did "Bram Stoker's" Dracula, which was pretty good despite them cutting up the story. It still, at least, had a plot.

Frankenstein, however, was nothing more than an attempt to get money off of having handsome actors/beutiful actresses and neat special affects.

I was surprised that one reviewer said "This movie was very consistent with the book" WHAT? Anyone who has read the book can NOT tell me that this movie was accurate! The whole story was skewered, mostly in favor of special effects. Just about the only similarity is that both are about a scientist who creates a monster and both die in the artic. Otherwise, I kept asking myself "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein... they reading the actual novel or the movie tie-in edition?"

Plotwise, this movie is fairly rediculus. Effects-wise, its even more so. When a flaming Elizabeth was running through the house and her flames were setting everyhting on fire--INSTANTLY--I was thinking "What, does Victor regularly soak his house in gasoline?" in fact, anything that's supposed to, can and does burn instantly, and everything else is fairly lame, just for the sake of special effects. Come on! Vic's lab is just a LITTLE too exaggerated, especially considering what he is trying to do there.

I was almost completely disgusted when I saw that these shameful producers even added a sex scene between Victor and Elizabeth! God! Does NO ONE HAVE DIGNITY ANYMORE? Subsequently seeing Monster pull Lizzy's heart out and then jump through a window only confirmed for me that this was an all-effects movie.

Don't bother with this tripe. If you MUST bother, read the book first, so you can see how horrible this movie truly is.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing 'Modern' Version of the Frankenstein Story!
Review: Hugely disappointing adaptation (?) of Mary Shelley's classic novel. Even more so because so many talent was involved and a much better film was expected. Kenneth Branagh, England's wonderboy whose adaptations of Shakespeare (Henry V, Hamlet) are extremely good and portray the explosion of a fresh and intense new talent. Unfortunately none of that survived here. Not as much fun as the original Universal 'Frankenstein' movies with Karloff, and not even a trace of campiness is added. Even though Branagh's way over the top performance could be considered campiness or simply shameless overacting. DeNiro is a weird choice to portray 'the monster' and even though he's no Karloff nobody can blame him for trying. Helena Bonham Carter is surprisingly unhelpful. Ian Holm and Tom Hulce, both extremely talented actors, are both unimpressive in their roles. This versions of 'the monster' and 'the bride' are a lot more hideous to the point of making the audience uncomfortable and not to mention nauseous. Dizzying non-stop camerawork and a thumping even distracting score don't help much. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 4!

Rating:
Summary: earth to Branagh: stick with Shakespeare!
Review: One thing Kenneth Branagh does well is to bring Shakespeare to life... but Shakespeare's plays were written as performances, Mary Shelley's "Frankensein" was not. Going from novel to screenplay involves more than adding a bunch of paragraph breaks and lighting cues in the margin of a book.

The thought that a doctor could be so skilled at sewing one person's head (including the spinal cord, other nerves, blood systems, etc.) onto another person's body is amazing, but totally laughable when you see that the stitches look like they were done by Stevie Wonder using guitar strings. Gore in many places for the sake of gore... and what was going on with Branagh's obsession with his own chest? I was half-expecting him to swing on a vine and beat on it like a gorilla.

De Niro and the rest of the cast give a marvelous performance, but it is not enough to save this wretched tale. A lot of magnificent talent went into set designs, costumes, location and filming, but this film fell on its face. You feel every agonizing second of the 2+ hour film tick away as you wait for something good to happen. Good acting and a good story are not enough sometimes and this film proves it. There are some exquisite scenes and powerful moments, but they are few and far between this shattered mess of a film. Horrific violence and one of the most bloody mother-in-labor scenes in memory make this a film unsuitable for children, expectant mothers or those with weak constitutions.

Rating:
Summary: A worth-while version
Review: As film adaptions of Frankenstein go, this is more accurate than most. It's good to see the Arctic climax restored, as it is so often omitted. Kenneth Branagh has made a satisfying, staightforward version of the story, thankfully containing little of the wayward characterisation and tricksy camera work which combine to sink Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. The horror element has been toned down a bit, although the section where Frankenstein ressurects Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) is quite disturbing.

Just a word about the creation scene, which is somewhat different to the 'thunder and lightning' scenario we have become used to. The monster floats in a tank full of amniotic fluid, which Frankenstein moves about the laboratory by means of chains and pulleys. The spark of life is provided by power generated from electric eels. Frankenstein, stripped to the waist, slips and slides on the fluid that has now poured onto the floor, and strikes the monster on the back, in the manner of a doctor slapping a new-born baby. It certainly gives a novel slant to a familiar situation.

Branagh directs and also plays the part of Frankenstein with energy and gusto. Robert DeNiro makes a formidable monster, but also manages to elicit our sympathy for his plight, which is just how it should be. The supporting performances from a host of well known British actors are generally good, perhaps the most interesting being John Cleese. He does well in a straight role as Dr. Waldemann, who takes Frankenstein under his wing at medical school. The comic relief is provided by Tom Hulce as Frankenstein's friend, Henry Clerval.

This is a good and entertaining version of Frankenstein, and well worth a look.

Rating:
Summary: Overwrought & Flat Attempt at Horror
Review: "Frankenstein" is the ultimate Gothic horror novel; written in 1818, just after the end of one age and before the dawning of another. It was a time of enormous change in society, with the coming of the industrial revolution and the rise of science, and Mary Shelley's novel reflected the fears and apprehensions of many of the people. Frankenstein's monster was a symbol of man's growing power to alter the very fabric of life itself, and at the same time a warning to all who would meddle in God's domain.

The story is familiar to everyone. A young scientist and medical student named Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) is conducting a series of bizarre experiments, convinced that, in the newly-discovered science of electricity, he has found the key to creating life. Robbing bits of corpses from here and there, Frankenstein forms his golem and then infuses it with the precious gift of life.

The monster (Robert DeNiro), of course, is horrible to behold, ghastly both in appearance and in deed. He escapes from Frankenstein's laboratory, fleeing into a world that is as frightening and strange as the monster himself. The Doctor suddenly takes ill and is nursed back to health by his fiancee (Helena Bonham Carter). He is devastated by his failure, but believes that his creation has died of cholera.

It is important to realize that Frankenstein's monster is no bete noir. He is a thinking, feeling creature; a haunted soul whose torment is magnified a thousand times by his awareness of his own monstrous nature. Feared and reviled, his overtures of goodness and peace are met with hostility and hatred. He thus learns that he is not welcome in the world of man, regardless of his intentions.

It would seem that there is no better director than Kenneth Branagh to handle this story. His flair for hyper-dramatic material and penchant for excess are just what is needed for "Frankenstein." Unfortunately, though, something is not right here. What should be the most exciting scenes in the film-the creation of the monster, for example-are instead flat and uninspired. The style of the film style is choppy and abrupt, the pacing uncertain, and the narrative muddled and uneven.

The fault must lie with Branagh. He has seemingly overextended himself, taking on too large a task, and his work suffers, especially his performance. He never seems to really get inside his character. It is particularly noticeable opposite the brilliant work of DeNiro. His monster is wonderfully wrought; his characterization, intricate and textured. Bonham Carter is also excellent, as is Ian Holm in a small role as the blind grandfather.

"Frankenstein" is not a terrible movie. The filmmakers, including producer Francis Coppola, are all too competent to allow that to happen. It is a big disappointment, though. I expected much better from such fine talent.

Rating:
Summary: Definetly not Mary Shelly's.
Review: If this were another typical Frankenstein movie it would have been the best. However, in the title, it claims to be Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, implying that it was based off the book. I have just finished reading the book by Mary Shelly, and the movie itself is missing so many important details that it distorts the book completely. In the movie, The introdction of characters is wrong, the creation of the monster is wrong, EVERYTHING IS WRONG! This is in no way Mary Shelly's. Now, I'm not knocking the movie at all. It was a rather ok movie. But if you're expecting it to be like Mary Shelly's book, then you will be greatly disappointed, much as I was. If you want to see an accurate Frankenstein movie that is stricly based off the book, then I suggest tuning into the Disney Channel. Mickey always seems to get things right!

Rating:
Summary: wonderful...
Review: I saw this again for the third time last week, and it still hasn't lost any of its charm. I'm glad to see a movie that actually remains faithful to the book. As a fellow reviewer wrote, "Frankenstien" is a tragedy, not a horror novel/movie. Though it can go a bit over the top at times, the performances by Branagh and Helena Bonham Carter are exquisite, and De Niro's monster is suprisingly moving. Especially if you are a fan of the book, or of superb acting, don't miss this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Great Classic Tragedy
Review: I love this show. Kenneth Branaugh does an excellent job of portraying Mary Shelley's vision of Frankenstein. Robert De Niro does an excellent job of portraying a creature without a soul. Far from the ho-hum ordinary blood and gore horror show, this show demonstrates the inherent horror in the wrong set of circumstances. (Much like a Shakespeare tragedy.) I came away feeling pity for everyone involved, including the monster.