Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
259 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
9/10
Unappreciated Classic! 9/10
The_Wood9 April 2002
I nearly spit out my teeth when I saw how low Frankenstein (94) score was. This film is quite simply spectacular! It goes in the same category as From Hell, they are both too sophisticated and beautiful to be JUST horror films. The cleverness of this film and its sheer radiance must throw some people off. Robert De Niro is the creature! De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own. De Niro's performance brings out genuine pity, sorrow, and most importantly, fear. Kenneth Branagh has always added a bit of class to his films, and his version of Frankenstein is no different. A visually brilliant triumph as a director.
123 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Underrated masterpiece
R_O_U_S26 January 2004
One of Branagh's more maligned works, though for the life of me I can't see why. Sticking closer to the book than to any preconcieved notions of Boris Karloff (perhaps that's why), this injects true horror into the story of a medical student who brings a corpse to life. If you don't like melodrama then maybe it's not the thing for you, but this deserves a far better reputation than it has.
107 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Another Great Film from Kenneth Branagh
Chris Richards4 March 2004
While many people seem to scorn this film, I found it wonderfully enjoyable. Like the great Orson Welles, He stars in, and directs, many of his movies. This one in particular shows some of his more excentric, if not marketable, passions in filmmaking that make movie buffs and connaisseurs alike enjoy this stylized and emotional film.

Yes, it is melodramatic. Yes, the acting is often over the top. But what many critics of this film fail to recognize is that this is precisly the point. By staying very true to the source material(until the Elizabeth thing) and the significant changes that WERE made are clear evidence of this. The book was melodramatic. What Kenneth Branagh does here is stay true to the spirit of the classic gothic novel. The great close-ups define the characters, and through them you can understand them. Do not mistake stylization for poor film-making, because this is a wonderfully made and presented film, that if understood captivates you from the first spoken words(a quote from Mary Shelly, setting up the stylization) to the last frame.

Know what you're getting into, a passionatly made film about what drives one to both excel and what drives one to madness, and the dangers of excess beyond reason. If you have read the book, regardless of whether you liked it or not,see this movie. You will love what they have retained, and will embrace what they've changed. this is not a film(not a movie, a film) for everyone. But for those who are willing to have an open mind, it is pure bliss!
81 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Deserves To Be Appreciated
ccthemovieman-116 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't appreciate this film until the second viewing, when I saw it on widescreen. Three viewings later, I have nothing but the highest regard for this Frankenstein rendition which is still, as other reviewers have pointed out, the most underrated of movies.

One MUST see this on widescreen DVD to full appreciate the incredible visuals. But this film is a lot more than eye candy. Supposedly, it was very close to Mary Shelley's book, which is the best compliment you can give it.

I liked the fact that the "monster" could talk and comprehend and, frankly, I liked the revenge factor and fact the monster decided his fate, not hysterical townsfolk as in the original Boris Karloff film (which has a sadder ending.)

This version, in my humble opinion, also had a more appropriate ending: the monster and his creator both dying together.

All the main characters acted the way you would think they would, meaning there was no ridiculousness here, as so often is the case in horror films. In other words, there was great realism put in a story that is a famous far-fetched-type of tale. To be fair, there are some scenes in which you wonder how the monster got where he did (inside homes, etc.) without being seen....so, to say there weren't SOME credibility issues would not be true...but overall, no complaints here.

I'd like to put a quick plug in here for the music, too. Wonderful sweeping classic music complements the astounding visuals. Add an involving story that is tough to put down once you start viewing, and you have one of the most undeservedly-panned movies of our time.
43 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Classy, gorgeous monster film
rose-29427 April 2008
Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont (who later disowned this film) and ambitiously directed by Kenneth Branagh, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a likable film which succeeds mostly in a refreshingly old-fashioned, Hammeresque vein. (I think Christopher Lee hated this movie and equally class-dripping Bram Stoker's Dracula because he felt that they were competing in the same area.) There's the classic monsters (Robert DeNiro!), the period sets, the lovely heroines in the lovely period costumes, the beautiful and suitably turbulent score... Certainly not a perfect film, but as a classy, gorgeous monster movie, it is a woefully underrated one.
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
One of the best horror stories of all time, truly a wonderful movie
Kristine29 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
In the 90's there was a string of remakes following the classic universal monsters: Dracula(Bram Stoker's Dracula), The Wolf Man(Wolf), The Mummy(The Mummy) and Frankenstein(Mary Shelley's Frankenstein). Sadly this is a more overlooked remake that I feel is a very strong movie. Not to deny any praise to the original Frankenstein from the 30's, Boris Karloff's performance is still one of the best and it's still a very scary movie. But there was no Frankenstein film to come out that would remain true to it's original story. In high school we read Frankenstein and it brought up so many interesting conflicts, where do you draw the line between living and playing God? Was Victor responsible for Elizabeth's death? Was the creature really a monster or just a victim? Kenneth Branagh took on this story and did an absolutely wonderful job.

Victor Frankenstein is the son of the wealthy Baron and Caroline Frankenstein. At one point in his childhood Victor's parents adopted Elizabeth, who would become the love of Victor's life. Years later Victor's mother dies giving birth to his brother William. Sometime before going off to the university, a grief-stricken Victor vows on his mother's grave that he will find a way to conquer death. On the night of his graduation Victor and Elizabeth promised to wed when Victor returns from his studies. He finds a friend in Henry Clerval and a mentor. Victor comes to believe that the only way to cheat death is to create life. Victor spends months in his apartment working on creating a living, breathing creature. Using dead body parts from various sources, he begins piecing a creature together. Late one night Victor finally gives his creation life, but he recoils from it in horror and renounces his experiments. But it might be too late for him to take back what he shouldn't have messed with in the first place.

Robert DeNiro did a great job playing The Creature, what a heartbreaking role to take on and he plays it with such amazing sympathy. He says to Victor "Did you ever consider the consequences of your actions? You made me, and you left me to die. Who am I?" and you seriously feel so much for him, he is the true victim. As in the book and not in the original movie, Victor does feel like a God when he is doing his experiments, but when he succeeds, he regrets it immediately. Kenneth did a wonderful job taking on this complicated man who isn't evil by any means but a victim of his own intelligence and wanting to cheat death. The supporting cast is wonderful with Helena Bonham Carter and Tom Hulce. The film can be a little over the top at times playing like a soap opera, but when I read the book, that's how I felt about the story as well. The sets, the costumes and the make are just incredible. Frankenstein is an underrated gem and deserves a better look. It's one of the most intelligent horror stories of all time, Kenneth put a lot of love into this film and I think Mary Shelley would be proud.

9/10
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Not your typical horror film - much much better
pyrocitor21 July 2004
(spoilers herein)

I saw this movie for the first time, in the dark solitude of my attic late at night. (I was trying to create a scary atmosphere for maximum effect) To my surprise, though, after it finished, I wasn't very frightened, but very emotionally drained. I had expected Frankenstein to be your classic, everyday, lame horror film which you only watch to get some cheap thrills, and see some horrible overacting. I didn't find it so at all.

This movie was, there is no other word for it, beautifully done - a powerful, dynamic story of how man attempts to achieve greatness, but ends up ruining their lives and the lives of others as a result. I have not read Mary Shelley's book, but if it has half the emotional effect of this movie, I'll consider it time well spent!

What really surprised me though, was that this wasn't a horror film in the traditional sense of the word - it wasn't so that the monster would jump out and the audience would scream. It was more about how the audience would slowly writhe as they realize the tortured motivations of the creature and what he's willing to do as consequence.

Kenneth Branagh brought this movie together wonderfully, with both his directing and powerful, memorable acting as the tormented Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Frankenstein is somewhat obsessed with death, after losing his mother at an early age, so he attempts to create a new form of artificial life, derived from various body parts of corpses: a life which cannot be so easily extinguished, and is superior to normal human life in every aspect. (except, perhaps, looking normal) However, he soon learns that it's not good to muck around with creating life, when his creation attacks him, and he abandons it. The creature, although initially showing signs of being a sympathetic and caring soul, quickly learns that the ways of man are harsh and judgmental, so he swears revenge on his creator for bringing him into this world of isolation.

The 'creature', was played absolutely masterfully by Robert De Niro. Before Frankenstein, the only movies I had seen with him were Analyze This and Analyze That, and those were comedies, so it was difficult to see his skills as a serious actor, but in playing Frankenstein's creation he created a character that is confused, alone, hostile, manipulative and clever: a very conflicted anti-hero. The scene at the end at Victor Frankenstein's funeral left me in shock by the sheer aura he projects - mixed hatred with compassion and confusion. In my opinion, his best moment is when he meets the ship's captain who asks him 'Who are you?' and the creature nods to his dead creator and responds 'He never gave me a name.' If nobody felt the power in that line, then I don't know what to say to them. I think De Niro deserved an Oscar, or at least a nomination for this role.

The supporting cast is also very good, with Helena Bonham Carter doing a wonderful and chilling job as Frankenstein's wife (another one who I think should have gotten an Oscar nod), and John Cleese (in probably the only downright serious role in his career) being very creepy as Frankenstein's mentor, who realized before that the moral implications of his kind of work cannot be lived with. Ian Holm as Baron Frankenstein was also good, but sadly, his part was underused. It would have been nice to see more of this great actor in this movie alongside all these other great actors. This isn't really a problem for the film as a whole: Holm played a relatively minor character, but I have a lot of respect for his acting skills, and I would have liked to see more of them in this movie.

This is probably one of the most powerful and draining movies I've ever seen in my life; I was so impressed by it that I had to run out and buy the DVD right away. I realize this film has many critics, who claim that it is 'seriously flawed' - I really can't understand what they're talking about. I guess some people are harder to please than others, but I find it almost impossible to find anything wrong with this film. Perhaps it was expected that it would be more your traditional horror film, but it really wasn't a horror movie - it was a character movie. It's true that there were some disgusting parts (I won't go into specifics, but you can probably get the idea), but they seemed to merely add to the mood of the movie, and increase your revulsion that Victor Frankenstein would have thought of creating such a monstrosity. For anyone who needs a good, powerful movie that'll leave you drained and thoughtful, this is THE movie for you!

-9/10
73 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Underrated Version of the Classic Story
Claudio Carvalho26 December 2013
In 1794, in the Arctic Sea, Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) is a man obsessed to reach the North Pole, pushing his crew to the exhaustion. When his ship hits an iceberg, she is stranded in the ice. Out of the blue, Captain Walton and his men overhear a dreadful cry and they see a stranger coming to the ship. He introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) and he tells to the captain the story of his life since he was a little boy in Geneva.

Victor is a brilliant student and in love with his stepsister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), an orphan that was raised by his father Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm). In 1793, Victor moves to Ingolstadt to join the university and he promises to get married to Elizabeth. In the school, Victor befriends Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce) that becomes his best friend. Victor gets close to Professor Waldman (John Cleese) and decides to create life to cheat death, but Waldman advises him that he should not try this experiment since the result would be an abomination. When Waldman dies, Victor steals his notes and tries to create life. He succeeds and gives life to a strong Creature (Robert De Niro), composed of parts of deceased persons. However he realizes that his experiment is a mistake and he abandons The Creature expecting that it could die alone. however The Creature survives and learns how to read and write, but he is a monster rejected by the society and by his own creator. The Creature decides to revenge from Victor killing everyone that he loves.

"Frankenstein" is an underrated version of the classic story. Directed by Kenneth Branagh, the dramatic story was not well accepted by the professional critics and by many viewers. I saw this movie in 1995 and I have just saw it again on DVD, and it is a great movie that has not aged. Unfortunately I have never read the novel by Mary Shelley to compare with this version that "is considered the most faithful film adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein de Mary Shelley" ("Mary Shelley's Frankenstein")
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
An Embarrassment
blackwalnut1 March 2001
When Cinemafantastique interviewed Kenneth Branagh on his recently-released version of Frankenstein, the writer asked Branagh to describe his viewpoint, his thematic slant on the story. Quite a natural question for a film maker to be asked, as the notions of theme and point of view are not optional, they are mandatory. A director must decide beforehand on the ideas he wishes to set forth, and craft the means to set them forth clearly. When dealing with a classic, oft-filmed work, he must choose a new slant, and exploit themes that have not been emphasized before (at least, in quite that way), if his work is to be at all original.

Branagh's breezy response was something on the order of, "I didn't really have a theme in mind, I just wanted to tell a good story."

This is precisely why Branagh's version fails: is an unanchored, misguided mess. Herewith is a barely coherent hash of styles, a series of boneheaded choices (a snotty Helena B. Carter as the "liberated" Elizabeth Frankenstein), a tangle of hanging threads -- beautiful clothes with no one in them; beautiful sets that form a backdrop to utter nonsense.

And it is dreadfully miscast. Branagh's ego trip as Dr. Frankenstein aside, the worst performance of all is that of Robert DiNiro as his creature. In this role, DiNiro proves that Pauline Kael was right all along. For years, Ms. Kael kept telling us that this mediocre talent was considered a great actor just because everyone said he was. In other words, he had been in the right place at the right time, and had stumbled into his undeserved reputation by pure chance. (Check out the way he sleeps through his role in Casino.) The spectacle of Frankenstein's creature mumbling in that repellent, thick New Yorkese is really one of the sorriest moments in all of filmdom -- there is simply no excuse for such a thing. Did anyone bother to tell him the story is set in Switzerland? I saw this movie in New York, at an East Side theater, and the audience was giggling nervously every time DiNiro opened his mouth. Why nervously? Because they "know" DiNiro is a "great" actor... Because they were embarrassed, pure and simple.

And they should have been. Branagh's desire to "tell a good story," while arrogantly disregarding the most basic elements of storytelling, quite naturally produced the opposite effect. In short, it produced an embarrassment.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a distinguished dramatic frankenstein
nourane (rose_automnale)2 September 2004
as i watched the trailer of the movie on TV, i thought it'll be another horror movie with the same old clichés, full of blood and disgusting scenes...However,when i saw the movie i was moved by the dramatic melancholic and tragic way in which branagh directed it...it wasn't at all such a trivial horror movie..on the contrary..it was another philosophical deep way of reviving Shelley's novel..it was another masterpiece of branagh's...he adopted the novel in such a delicate dramatic romantic way..and dipped into the moral that Shelley meant by her story..Branagh made of Victor Frankenstein another Odesseus whose vanity and arrogance makes him think that he could imitate God and defy Him..he made him a tragic hero haunted by the death of his mother which has created in him the urging desire of fighting death and creating an alternative life...Branagh's choice of the actors was more than perfect, De Niro made a sympathetic touching creature despite his violence and thick hands ,the creature in this movie managed to escape being another scary pale dead monster walking the earth as it was in the old Frankenstein movies,the genius De Niro made us feel and believe that this creature bears great equal amounts of love and rage and that if he cannot satisfy one ,he'll indulge the other (as he says to frankenstein), Helena Bonham Carter was splendid as Elizabeth,she was like the refreshing breeze in the movie which could decrease the intensity of the bloody scenes, Tom Hulce in the role of Henry was in his friendship to Victor as intimate as the friendship of Horatio to Hamlet, Ian Holm as the baron Frankenstein was very good ,but his part was too small that he couldn't show all his talents, Richard Briers was great in the role of the tender grandfather, and of course Kenneth Branagh himself as Frankenstein was perfect,he could make us pity for Frankenstein rather than hating him. Generally the movie despite its several bloody scenes,makes an intense powerful drama..and makes you saturated with a strange sense of melancholy after seeing it...Branagh's Frankenstein is really a must-see :)))
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
He's my father...
vikitoria8 January 2004
Not knowing what to expect, I was fascinated by this movie. It offered a great story, and finale which lacks in most movies.

I loved the Lon Chaney "Frankenstein", and loved this one too! DeNiro was interestingly cast as the monster. Branagh as Dr. Frankenstein was the most engaging of all, being devastated by deaths all around him and wanting to stop death. It's really a story of playing God, but also having the ability and intelligence to do it ---- and to have the intelligence to see it was not the greatest decision ever made. It's just a love story, bottom line. Wouldn't we want to bring someone back from the dead so we can spend more time with them?

Branagh never got the credit he deserved for this movie. He directed a brilliant story that could have gone anywhere - yet he kept it within the story of love. Kudos Mr. Branagh!!
46 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good but a bit too worthy and full of it's own self importance
bob the moo1 December 2002
Victor Frankenstein is the son of a famous doctor who watches his mother die in labour with his younger brother. As an idealistic young man he travels to university to study to become a great doctor. However he brings with him non-scientific teachings he has researched into life and the influence of electric currents. His belief is supported by shadowy lecturer Dr Waldeman and Frankenstein continues his work and brings a man back to life using parts of other men. Realising what he has done, Frankenstein leaves his monster to die but the creature learns fast and wants revenge for his creation.

I have seen far too many monster movies that all blur together and share the same focus on effects and gore than story or character. So when this was promoted as being close to the original material, dark and more of a story than a horror I was looking forward to watching it. For the most part it sort of works but it's main flaw runs all the way through it like a stick of rock – it's far too worthy. Or at least it thinks it is. The film has a constant swell of dramatic music that is only ever seconds away and it really makes the film feel grander and more serious than it really is. The film isn't scary but that wasn't a problem to me – it just has all these big worthy dialogue scenes with sudden pauses (up comes the music) and then lines. It doesn't work and the film feels heavy and even dull as a result.

This is never more evident than in Branagh's own performance. He is far too dashing and too much of a young man gone wrong to be believed. If he'd played it a little less worthy he would have been more of a human and less a cardboard type. De Niro really tries hard and did well for me. He may be stuck with a creature but it has been developed past the cliché (but not far enough perhaps). I did feel for him and it was all De Niro's doing. Carter is miscast both before and after – far to light and modern for the role, Briers is OK but Cleese is way to miscast. First of all the fact that he only appears half in shadows and when he opens his mouth the music comes up doesn't help, but it didn't feel like him. Quinn is a good cameo but the majority of the cast seem to have bought into the whole `worthy' thing and are dulled as a result.

Overall the film is worth watching because it is a good telling of the classic tale and De Niro does a good job of showing us the basic human behind the combined dead body parts. If only Branagh hadn't been overwhelmed by the sheer importance of what he thought he was doing and had let the film flow and bit more and given in less to worthy music, acting and directing.
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Hollywood's Frankenstein - some SPOILERS
razvanu17 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have absolutely no clue why it was allowed for this movie to be called "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein. If you go read the book, you will realize how incredibly inferior this movie is to the actual text. Robert DeNiro you say? Don't be fooled! His character barely speaks. In the novel, the creature is very eloquent when he speaks to Victor. In the movie, he can barely move his lips. Also, the character of Victor in the movie shows nothing of the internal struggle that goes on in the novel. He is made into a half-Hollywood hero: when the creature comes to life, he goes chasing after it with an axe LOL And that is just a small example of how this movie does no justice to the novel. If you have read the book, and you are expecting to see it recreated for the screen, you are badly mistaken! If on the other hand you wanna see a typical Hollywood movie, go for it!
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This movie was absolutely abominable to any educated person.
jmcguire-323 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I am a high school English teacher who is in the process of teaching "Frankenstein" to my classes. When I rented the movie "Mary Shelley's Frakenstein", I expected it to be consistent with the novel; hence, the reference to Mary Shelley in the actual title.

This movie makes me internally conflicted between anger and laughter. The actual novel was butchered. There are countless scenes that are just absolutely fabricated. The movie has consistent scenes which just don't make sense. If you're going to refer to the author in the title, how about actually honoring the poor woman? Make a movie that respects her story, instead of butchering it. Unfortunately, this woman isn't alive to defend herself and disassociate herself from this film.

-Victor's mother died of Scarlet Fever, not during childbirth. -Henry Clerval was a childhood friend; not someone Victor met at Ingolstadt (university). -During the whole novel Victor refuses to tell anybody how he created the creature, while in the novel we have all this detail. -Why the hell was Branaugh putting up a lightening rod in the middle of a field where he and Elizabeth are the tallest objects in the area? How is he able to count down perfectly to when the lightening will strike? Where did that scene come from anyway? -They played up the pseudo incestuous nature of Elizabeth and Victor way too much. -The monster cuts firewood for the cottagers; he doesn't pick fricking radishes for them.

This is only the very beginning of the movie and I haven't included nearly all the stupidity.

If you read the novel, you should be disappointed in this sorry excuse for a film.
37 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
This is true to the original story???
gb422 March 2002
I recently had to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for my literature class and I loved it! So I was really excited to watch the movie that is supposed to be 'true to the original novel'. Let me tell you that I was QUITE disappointed. This film is nothing like the original novel. Kenneth Branaugh should be ashamed. This is probably his second worst film (after the musical version of Loves, Labours, Lost). He completely changed the ending, and it was terrible. If you're ever planning on watching the movie so that you don't have to for a class, DON'T! And just so you know, I do love the original 1931 version of Frankenstein, even though it is nothing like the novel either.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Takes a big dump on all previous "Frankenstein" films from an almighty height...
mentalcritic3 December 2000
...it's just such a pity that this is faint praise, since this one never quite rises above the B-level in itself. All the elements for a brilliant film were in place: a perfect cast (especially De Niro as the monster), breathtaking locations, and for once, complete faithfulness to the real story. With nary a bolt or piece of green skin in sight, Mary Shelley's classic tale of anti-science terror has never looked so great.

It's just such a pity that it cannot make its mind up whether it wants to be a pure emotional drama or a straight-for-the-throat horror story. Robert De Niro lends his character(s) the right degree of emotion and subtlety, and John Cleese surprises the stuffings out of me by showing that yes, he really can act. Helena Bonham Carter gives a good performance that allows the rest of the cast something to work with, but her role is sadly underdeveloped. Unfortunately, all of these foundations are brought crashing down by Kenneth Branagh's overacting. Had the wild bursts of energy and madness been a little spaced out (as is generally the case with the mentally ill), a great deal of believability would have been salvaged. Unfortunately, his performance as Victor Frankenstein turns what could have been a modern masterpiece into a sophomoric stage play with production values, captured on celluoid.

Having said that much, it is wonderful to see that Hollywood has finally dismissed the childish imitation of Frankenstein that has plagued it since the 1930s. No more bolts, no more stupid-looking makeup, and no more idiotic poses. De Niro and Branagh bring the monster to life in such an elegant way that, in the scenes when we see the monster struggle alone, we just cannot help but feel for him. Indeed, the scenes when the monster is chased out of the town by ignoramuses who believe him to be carrying "the plague", one has to wonder who the real monsters of this story are. Speaking as a mental patient who has never to this day been properly treated, my favourite point of this film is the moment where Frankenstein confronts his creation. Hearing the "son" tell the "father" how the latter gave the former these major impulses and bursts of violent strength without teaching the poor creature how to deal with them rings so true for me that I still show this scene to the health professionals I try to educate from time to time.

If I could sum up my comments on this film in a single phrase, it would be that while we have a long way to go in realising the true horror element of this story, Kenneth Branagh's effort stands head and shoulders above the pack. Well worth having a look at, and the photography alone makes it worth owning on DVD.
37 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
I have never laughed so much at an attempt at a serious film....
max_byng16 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This was just the biggest pile of s**t i have ever seen and i'm serious. Kenneth Brannagh was frankly embarrassing - please God someone stop letting him direct, produce and act in his films because no one can tell him how awful they are. John Cleese's rabbit teeth were hilarious but by far the two most hilarious parts of the film were the look on Brannagh's face when the monster tells him to meet him up on the ice in a few days (he's thinking why not do it now????) and also the scene where Brannagh attempts to save the guy who taught him in the operating room (the camera work is absolutely classic!). All in all i would encourage you to watch this film but only as a comedy - if you do you will laugh for ages! Oh yes and also check out Brannagh's Hamlet - the guy slaughters every film he touches.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
It's A-LAFF....!
ptb-828 January 2006
Well as awful movies go, and hilariously so, this miscast over-produced silliness is a million carrot rank winner. Under the section titled "GOOFS" in the IMDb should be link back to this film. I just roared with laughter at De Niro as Frankenstein's monster. Never ever have I seen any actor reduce himself to such inappropriate astonishing and really really funny foolishness for a paycheck. I said it before (about Cape Fear and just about everything else he appeared in from We're No Angels onward) so I will say it again with this mess: how many bad films can this guy make? To see De Niro trussed and Freddie Kruger-ed with plasticine scars and all mumble-mouthed grunting 'Have you ever considered the consequences of your actions... (grerble spittle slurp)" is so funny I nearly fell from the seat. Huntz Hall from the Bowery Boys would have mugged less. Just because Coppola's Dracula made money the usual accountant minds decided we could have a new Frankenstein. I would have preferred a re release of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN...although it is not as hilarious as this film. The sheer stupidity of the farm snow scenes where 'thamonsta' sleeps in the hay and 'educates himself' (for weeks on end apparently) by reading the Doctor's stolen detailed scientific diary on anatomy, whilst peeking through the cottage wall...and .. checking out his own stitches and scars and sewn together all male hairy lumpy pimply nooks and crannies beneath his colour co-ordinated designer rags from the prop dept...and... later quietly picking a field of frozen turnips (!!).......we are talking about some Euro bumpkin family who do not realise for months there is a genius monster sleeping on their doorstep reading science books (!!) but like a fairy clodhopper invisibly does farm work for them (like elves that clean shoes)...oh it is all so ridiculous. This film is 'up there' with WHITE MISCHIEF and LOOKING FOR RICHARD and PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE for genuine audience participation as a late-show 'shout at the screen' comedy night. Hilarious! What about the slimy afterbirth waltz performed by De Niro and Branagh, channelling Fabio! Oh God! You have to see it! and.....Don't even get me started on WOLF with Jack Nicholson grinning (at the thought of $20million) as a ...werewolf! You'll moon at the screen yourself.
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Starts off so perfectly, then, suddenly, goes astray. (Spoilers)
JadeEagle22419 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Kenneth Branagh took on quite a challenge with this film: How do you top the original movie which, while it hardly captured Mary Shelley's book, was so well made for its time? And, how do you overcome the fact that, for over 60 years, your audience has been ingrained with the image of a bolted-templed, grunting monster as professor Frankenstein's creation, rather than Shelley's patch-work man? Kenneth Branagh's solution is perfect: leave the old classic behind, and instead, follow the book. If only he had followed through until the end, this movie could have been spectacular.

Unfortunately, Branagh took artistic license with the ending, and flawed his masterpiece. But, the rest of the movie was too good to be completely overlooked because of a bad ending. I love Branagh's portrayal of Professor Frankenstein. He is brilliant, passionate, and sometimes visceral. Handsome, in a scruffy sort of way (I never did buy the squeaky-clean, neat Frankenstein). I have always admired the talent of the classically-trained Branagh.

DeNiro stepped out of his typical mobster character to play a Creature (*not* monster) which is the closest portrayal I have seen to Mary Shelley's creation. I was actually impressed with DeNiro's performance because he was able to disguise himself. When I heard he was cast as the Creature, I half-expected the mobster DeNiro to appear. Luckily, he did not. And, yes, you sympathized with the Creature. He was created, then discarded to survive without guidance. An ugly quilt of a man.

I enjoyed the chemistry between Frankenstein and Elizabeth. Their love is very believable. I'm glad they chose to delve into the development of the relationship from adoptive brother and sister to lovers. This movie (until the end) is darkly and beautifully rich in Mary Shelley's writings.

At one point, I say Branagh even improved upon Shelley's work. The character Justine is wrongfully accused of murder. In the book, to prevent further discord, she is forced to falsely admit her guilt and is hanged. Branagh turned this instead into a lynching by an angry mob in the heat of the moment. A much more acceptable scenario, in my opinion.

But, just as the audience is swept away but the brilliance of the film, after Elizabeth is killed, the movie loses its way. As I watched, I remember mentally screaming, "No! No! You were doing so well! Stay with the book!" I was very disappointed with the conclusion of this work of art. That having been said, this is still an intelligent, very well made movie. You'll appreciate it more if you've read the book.

My rating: 7/10, because it was a fabulous movie sans ending.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
For MTV attention-span only...
coy_dog01 November 2006
This movie is a disastor. Its very typical of a 90s Hollywood blockbuster, in that its a disconnected mess of flashy images and very poor storytelling.

Every single shot is done with a swooping camera, melodramatic music and for rushed dialogue. Almost every scene (count them), begins with a character either running or walking very, very fast. For the love of god, sit still, so we can enjoy the movie, guys.

The characters are one-note, and are usually yelling at someone, or are very angry.

If anything, the editor should never receive another assignment. In the end, though, it is the director who is responsible for this mess. And therefore, I will never watch a Kenneth Branagh film again! Please, please, rent the 1958 Hammer Horror version instead, or at the very least, the 1937 Universal film.

This film is mess.

-mike
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Seriously, what were they thinking?
joliefille41126 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, this film is so inaccurate on so many levels. I read the book in 12th grade, and I can't say I liked the story, but that is not my beef with this movie. Why call it MARY SHELLY'S Frankenstein if its not based on her novel? The inclusion of the author's name implies more accuracy, not less.

Okay, why is Frankenstein dancing on the mountains with his half-sister and a lightening pole? He was a medical student because of his mothers death, not a random science enthusiast. His mother also died from illness, not childbirth. Frankenstein's friend Henry was from his hometown, not his school. And why did Kenneth Branagh feel the need to slick himself up in goo for the monster-making scene? Also, there was no need for the sex scene, unless it was just to "spice up" the movie, as Frankenstein and Elizabeth never had a chance to consummate their marriage. And what was with the whole trial-gone-awry!?? It was supposed to be an unfair trail, not a mob-gone-mad and throwing the girl off a cliff. Why was the monster going to secret meetings in ice caves?

But the MOST ridiculous part was when Frankenstein tried to regenerate Elizabeth. She's DEAD and should stay that way! Why could he not make the one girl with the perfectly fine body come to life, but magically when he hacks off her head and stick's on his lovers, she sparks to life. And was it necessary to shave half her head in the process? The longer this movie went on, the more i just wanted to laugh. It went so far off base, it shouldn't have even been called Frankenstein, let alone dared to include the author's name as if she'd given personal approval. Unless of course, he knew it was so far removed, people wouldn't recognize and confuse it with Bob Smith's Frankenstein.
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Embarrassing
Mike Sh.16 April 2001
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I've never seen the entire movie. I lasted about on hour or so (maybe a little longer) before the limit of my tolerance was reached.

What was wrong with this movie? Kenneth Branagh, ham though he may be, was decent enough in this movie. The exact same goes for Robert DeNiro, who got to ham it up a lot while wearing lots of monster makeup. John Cleese was surprisingly good as a medical professor. Helena Bonham Carter is always easy on the eyes. The sets, the costumes, the cinematography, the story, all good.

What really wrecked this movie was its ham-fisted direction. Branagh the Director is infatuated with Branagh the Actor, and seems to work only to highlight to best effect the object of his admiration. This only serves to make Branagh the Actor look particularly hammy and over the top. I could feel my face flush with embarrassment as I watch this disgusting display of narcissism.

Kenny boy, if you're reading this, may I make a suggestion? Next time you want to make another adaptation of a Shakespeare play, or a Gothic novel, please consider handing over the directorial reins to someone else who can approach the overarching talent of Branagh the Actor with a little more, uh.... detachment.

Think about it, won't you? Thank you.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Alive!? Hardly
bruce-campbell1 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie over-reached itself. There's melodrama, and then there's parodic melodrama. Almost Princess Bride melodrama. The green-light decision is pretty obvious—Coppola producing, Branagh starring & directing, DeNiro as the creature, Bonham-Carter's face and ability to run in 18th century woman of quality clothes is a plus, John Cleese (!?) doing the fifth business. Ian Holm, Celia Imrie… and Tom Hulce. What? Casting by what they've done before, not whether the parts were right for the players.

DeNiro did Cape Fear with more makeup, Hulce should have giggled more, and really not tried to do a British accent, Branagh should have spent less time with his shirt off (how many months in the gym prior to principal photography?), and John Cleese (the best of the bunch, IMO) should have insisted on less silly prosthetic teeth. The real problem was the script, or rather, the lack of a script. Lines were puerile, motivation lacking, and everyone's reaction was typical: overact the crap out of it.

In the end, we had to give it the MST3K treatment, mostly referencing Young Frankenstein and Rocky Horror. Thank goodness the DVD version didn't have any special features. I might have been really hard on the film, then.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
An effort to be respected... and avoided
SunsetGlory8 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This 1994 Kenneth Branagh twist on Mary Shelley's classic Gothic horror novel finds itself coming into existence in the middle of a decade of constant remakes and endless melodramatic horror films. The basic story is ingrained into America's pop culture: a young scientist, Victor Frankenstein, whose obsession with death leads to his obsession with creating life, with playing God. The creation of his monster, a combination of the bodies of executed criminals, (by the way, an entire scene of this movie is devoted to the collection, mutilation, and sewing together of said bodies) goes awry, the creature escapes and, once educated, swears revenge on Victor and his family. Victor marries his adopted sister, Elizabeth, and is driven to madness and subsequent death at his creation's hands. Sadly, it is here that the major similarities between the original novel and Kenneth Branagh's creation end.

Mary Shelley's classic Gothic horror novel has been endlessly analyzed and debated over, true to the wish of the late Mary Shelley, who wanted to write a subtle book that made you think, even long after you've finished reading it. Unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, much of the intended subtlety of Mary Shelley's (as well as that of all authors') work was lost in the transition to the stage and the silver screen. The worst of this, thought, is that many of these movies, perhaps for the sake of audiences not familiar with the original text and who did not (do not) like complicated protagonists, try very hard to get the audience on Victor's side. They try to prove that he is, in his heart of hearts, an honorable man who made a mistake, and is now constantly paying for it at the merciless hands of his creation; failing, in the process, to remind the audience that, whatever "The Monster" is, Victor made him. As the creature of this adaptation says to Victor on "the sea of ice" in the mountains of Geneva, "You gave me these movements, but you did not tell me how to use them. Now, two people are dead, because of us." The overall effect of the movie was, thinking back on it, very bloody. The death of Victor's wife on her wedding night was gruesomely changed to suit the tone of the rest of the movie.

The blood in the remainder of the movie deviates unnecessarily from the book, (the creature rips out Elizabeth's heart on her wedding night with Victor, and when Victor tries to reanimate her with Justine's body, the creature appears. They battle for her, and she takes her own life, burning the house to the ground) and it looks very, very fake. The visuals, in this way, are reminiscent of Bram Stoker's Dracula, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, producer of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Dracula, which came out in 1992, also involved large and unnecessary explosions of blood. Kenneth Branagh, along with his co-stars, deserves credit for his efforts, but this adaptation of Frankenstein ultimately leaves a bad taste in the mouth that is not the terror provided by a good thriller, but the disgust provided by a bad one. A disgust that is heightened by the fact that the title bears its author's name.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews