IMDb > Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 18 of 25: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [Next]
Index 246 reviews in total 

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: Darguz from Battle Creek, MI
19 October 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(SPOILERS herein) I really looked forward to seeing this film, as I had heard it followed the book more closely than anything previously. I suppose it did, but for Pete's sake, why can't Hollywood just tell a story? What the hell was the deal with the ripping-the-heart-out-and-reanimation crap? I didn't mind that they didn't kill off Henry, and I didn't mind how they shortcut Justine's death -- it made it slightly less tragic, a little less painful. There were 2 or 3 "Huh??!!" moments throughout the film, but nothing too awfully distracting. But then I guess KB decided Mrs. Shelley's ending wasn't quite Hollywood enough, and needed a little more flash and gore.

Overall, the film is very patchy. There are some very good moments, probably even the majority, but they are jarringly interspersed with moments ranging from mediocre to appalling. Too bad. Hopefully some day someone will really tell this story properly on film.

Here's some advice to future filmmakers: it's a *tragedy*. Don't try to gloss it over. If you want to make a film of this story, ignore everything that's been done before, just read the book and keep that in mind. I was quite impressed with De Niro's portrayal of the creature. That was the one point I was most dubious about going into it, but I should have known better. If you can get someone like him, you're good in that department. Don't cast your girlfriend as Elizabeth, unless she truly can portray the grace and elegance of Shelley's Elizabeth, rather than the edgy, grating portrayal here. Be sure you hire a good editor; this film could have been greatly helped with one. And above, all *tell the story*! Don't fiddle with it. I know you can't cover every little detail, but you can keep the integrity.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Very Cheesy

Author: tomcat857 from Wiltshire, England
4 October 2004

This film starts off with a potential to be very good and I was rather looking forward to watching it. However the film is very cheesy and as a result I cringed at some points as it was just too ridiculous (I.e when the monster is rolling around on the floor with Victor)The special effects were embarrassingly poor and the acting didn't involve the viewer in the story at all. At times the story was confusing. The scene in the film which made me laugh out loud (as it was so poorly directed and thought out) was when the re-living woman drops a lantern with a small amount of oil and the whole house goes up in flames instantly as if 20 tonnes of C4 had been put into the rooms. This is ridiculous as a small lantern fire would not grow this quickly and carry on exploding all of the rooms as quickly as it did. The explosion wouldn't even reach the main hall of that house. I was rather disappointed and would have to be generous to even give the film 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

What the Hack?

Author: tzer0 from The World Of Tomorrow
12 September 2004

Sometimes Branagh's pretty good. Sometimes he's a hack. Which is what he did in the editing in this thing, sometimes called Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. It should be called Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein. Just look at the creation scene. He could have slime wrestled with a naked Helena Bonham-Carter . . . but NooooooOOOOOOOooooo! (I guess he got enough of that at home) He has to do it with Bobby De Niro! Well, he is English. As for H B-C, I guess she'd had enough as well, since she moved on to another director, Burton, who also is sometimes good, sometimes a hack. I guess those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And as many period pictures as she's been in, you would think she'd have learned that by now.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An Abominable Science

Author: jrfranklin01 from Palm Beach, FL
12 September 2004

Kenneth Branagh does a superb job acting and directing this film about a grisly consequence that was born from the industrial age of science. The young and unconventional Dr. Frankenstein (Branagh) challenges passe teachings of medicine in the hopes to uncover new and exciting methods to assist patients. But in his unsated struggle to discover and help lead a medical renaissance, he starts up the abandoned work of one of his professors who gave it up years ago because it lead to abomination. But Dr. Frankenstein refuses to listen to the cautions of his associates. He equips a laboratory and prepares himself to do the unimaginable - piece together a human being a bring it to life.

Meanwhile Frankenstein is carrying on a relationship with his adopted sister, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), which I must admit was a bit disgusting, despite the accepted incestuous relationships during that time. When his experiment threatens his relationship with Elizabeth and threatens his own health, Frankenstein abandons the work, all but convinced that the abomination he created would perish on its own.

But some horrible acts just never go away and soon come back to darken your door. And this is exactly what happens when "The Monster" (Robert De Niro) pays a visit to his maker. He demands to have a bride of his own, created just a he was, imperfect and grotesque so that he would not feel physically inferior or horrendous. When Frankenstein refuses, The Monster takes matters into his own hands in a gruesome act of vengeance.

In the end, we see how some things once done, can never be undone. And how the consequences of what we do can disastrous effects. This film adds a bit of poetic justice to the quite believable acts of "noble" doctors who acted in the name of science without considering the morality and humane repercussions of their work. Mary Shelley created an immortally gripping work of horror spawned from a summer night at Lord Byron's. 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The truest representation in film of a seminal work of English literature.

Author: stuart_harden
20 June 2004

Read works of literature; watch cinematic representations of the same: compare the vision. Compare the purity of content from film to film and recognize those works rendered films by Kenneth Branagh, are unequaled.

Read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Do not review this film simply as a member of the jaded field of films devoted to the allure of "Frankenstein" - rather find the explicit nature of the work represented in Branagh's film.

Further explanation is available per individual requirements, as for the required length of this article, my compliance is in protest.

Think Peace-


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as James Whale's attempts

Author: malkane316 from NI
23 May 2004

Not as good as James Whale's attempts, but thoroughly enjoyable, thanks largely to the performances of the three leads. Branagh is naïve, and borderline mental, De Niro adds a unique human touch to The Monster, whilst remaining deeply threatening, and Carter is her usual over the top, eye-shadowy self. The first on my top 150 list of the odd resurgence of ‘literal horror movies', which occurred in the nineties, this is an interestingly emotional film. We feel pity, and hatred for both Frankenstein and The Monster, and the end leaves us with little hope or happiness. Different from the novel in many respects, Branagh keeps the Gothic feel of the text intact, via the authentic sets and costumes.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: Swampthing316 from USA
25 March 2003


Was Kenneth Branagh smoking some crack or something when he got towards the end of film,deciding that he didn't like the book anymore, to screw it over completely.

This movie has potential, it was good up until the death of Elizabeth which Branagh screwed up, she doesn't get her heart ripped out in the novel, she gets her neck broken just like in the TNT version.

Elizabeth is not resurrected as a monster in the novel, she is buried and that is it, Victor goes mad and goes on to pursue the monster just like in the TNT version.

This very bad segment killed this entire film, the end was exactly like the book but still could not save this film.

Can you say try again Mr. Branagh, can you say failure.

I smell a very terrific remake coming up.

Tell me if Mr. Branagh can make a 4 hour word for word version of Hamlet, why the hell can't he stick to the book for a simple story like Frankenstein.

I rest my case.

This movie recieves the harshest rating I can give!

no stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Odd Adaptation to the Famous Novel.

Author: tfrizzell from United States
3 March 2003

An utter mess that wastes the talents of many performers and makes a classic novel look like a common Stephen King-based horror film adaptation. The title says it all as the mad doctor (played by director Kenneth Branagh) has a real problem with death. Thus he makes science run amok with the creation of a monster (Robert DeNiro) with shortcomings a mile long. Naturally the monster is discarded of, but the monster vows revenge and will stop at nothing until his creator feels the pain and degradation he has felt. "Mary Shelley's Frankestein" is somewhat true to the novel, but Branagh's unique take on the classic is more annoying than interesting. He takes depth away from an amazingly deep novel that poses many questions about life, death and the role that God plays with human beings. Branagh used high-class actors (Helena Bonham Carter, John Cleese, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce and Aidan Quinn) and gave them time-wasting cameos and dialogue that bored more than interested. DeNiro does what he can to salvage the ugly emptiness, but he too becomes lost in the shuffle as his screen-time fails to fill the dead spots the film has. Branagh's own self-indulgence hurts DeNiro's part immensely as well. Overall a fair film, but honestly a huge disappointment that never comes close to anything remotely impressive. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

To hell with Boris Karloff...Robert De Niro is the man!

Author: Jack the Ripper1888 from Chicagooooooo
5 January 2003

Yes, I do apologize, Boris Karloff is the master of the macabre as he was the original FRANKENSTEIN. But, I feel that this 1994 updated version of Mary Shelley's classic tale of horror is far better.

I love the way the story is developed and the way it actually holds your interest (like how the 1931 film did not). I love the gloomy art direction and the great performances from the well-known cast. Robert De Niro gives an astonishing performance as the monster.

The costume design and script were both done beautifully. 18th century Geneva is re-created almost so beautifully, I would almost want to live there. The sky is very gloomy and grey and it has that sudden ring that made a lot of people love SLEEPY HOLLOW. So, yes in my opinion, this film is far better than the 1931 version. I know many people consider it to be the greatest horror film ever made, but it just does not hold my interest, and this movie does. It takes Mary Shelley's classic novel and throws in some new twists and some thrills that may lead to some actual, genuine shocks. I left this film thinking only one thing: "WOW!"

FRANKENSTEIN (1994) gets 5/5.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

New Frankenstein with human feelings

Author: esteban1747 from Spain
24 December 2002

If you saw the former Monster of Frankenstein played by Boris Karloff compared to this new one played by Robert De Niro, you will see enormous differences between both. Karloff's one is more horror while De Niro's is more literate, he is able to listen, to think, to read and to discover who is the bad doer. In any case, everyone is free to choose any of them. If you are looking for pure horror, then take Karloff, but if you want to see more reasonable film then De Niro is the choice. This film gives the opportunity to reason, in fact the bad is not the monster but his creator, and the film came at the time when some scientists are looking for human cloning not paying enough attention to the problems of ethics of this issue.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 18 of 25: [Prev][13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history