The Romanian count known as Dracula is summoned to London by Arthur Holmwood, a young Lord who is one the verge of being wed. Unknown to Arthur's future bride Lucy, her future husband is ... See full summary »
Dr. Victor Frankenstein creates his creature, who escapes into the countryside to find that humanity has only pain and sorrow for him. But a psychic link between created and creator draws ... See full summary »
North London Book of The Dead is a comic story of loss and acceptance, coupled with a surreal vision of the afterlife, based on a Will Self short story. Grown man, W, struggles to come to ... See full summary »
When newly elected MP Richard Dove runs over a young girl on a deserted forest road he fatally decides to bury her in the woods and save his blossoming career. But when he returns to his ... See full summary »
One in the series of critically acclaimed High Maintenance shorts, Rachel focuses on Colin (Dan Stevens of Downton Abbey), a husband, stay-at-home father and writer. When he starts to ... See full summary »
If you were disappointed with how loosely the 1931 Frankenstein followed Shelly's famous novel, you will be pleased with the 2004 TV miniseries version. It follows the plot of the book almost exactly, and I believe the most pleasing and refreshing detail is that the monster becomes extremely literate in much the same way as in the book, by spying on a foreign girl's education, then by finding and reading various novels, one of which being Paradise Lost.
The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.
3 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?