When this first came out I thought it was a masterpiece. I was also a young man and had not experienced too many films yet. While this is still probably the best Frankenstein film IMO, in a recent viewing I was shocked to find that I really didn't hold it as high of regard as I did. Branaghs acting is way over the too and quite ridiculous even. I saw many things in the plot lines that are what I call lazy screenplay writing. Certain events were so forced by the charachters unrealistic actions that a lot of this film seemed quite silly. Deniro is really the main reason to watch the film. His performance was still quite good IMO. All in all this was a pleasant memory that didn't hold water for me personally with a more mature mindset. Still some great stuff in the film though.
320 Reviews
Another Great Film from Kenneth Branagh
richardscd4 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!
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!
Could have been great
BandSAboutMovies21 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Considered the most faithful film adaptation of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, this 1994 movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh and written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, who said that it was, "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen."
He told Creativescreenwriting.com, "t's kind of like the movie I wrote, but not at all like the movie I wrote. It has no patience for subtlety. It has no patience for quiet moments. It has no patience period. It's big and loud and blunt and rephrased by the director at every possible turn. Cumulatively, the effect was a totally different movie. I don't know why Branagh needed to make this big, loud film...the material was subtle. Shelley's book was way out there in a lot of ways, but it's also very subtle. I don't know why it had to be this operatic attempt at filmmaking. Shelley's book is not operatic, it whispers at you a lot. The movie was a bad one. That was my Waterloo. That's where I really got my ass kicked most as a screenwriter..."
Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein, who starts the film as a man suffering from pneumonia who has been seeking to kill his creation, tracking it into the arctic. We go back to see how things became this dire, as Victor promises his mother, at her grave, that he will conquer death. For a time, he's joined by his teacher Professor Waldman (John Cleese), who warns him of the consequences of going against God and nature. After he's murdered (by an unnamed man played by Robert DeNiro, who goes on to play the creature that Frankenstein brings to life), his brain is used within the creature given the spark of life.
Victor is horrified by his creation's appearance and tries to kill him. In his nascent state, the creature is driven from town by the villagers. Even when he connects with an old blind man, it goes badly. Finally, he burns the farm of the man's family to the ground and declares war on his creator. He kills Frankenstein's brother William, sets up Justine, the family maid who has always loved the doctor and demands that his nemesis make him a mate. When he refuses, he murders Frankenstein's fiancee (Helena Bonham Carter) and forces him to bring her back to life. She's horrified at the way she looks and sets herself on fire, which brings us back to the cold ice floes and the close of the tale.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein may be imperfect, but DeNiro is absolutely incredible in the lead. He studied the way that stroke victims who have learned to speak again sound to get the right voice. I love the way he creates his own take on a creature that has been filmed so many times and his role is the absolute best thing in this movie.
He told Creativescreenwriting.com, "t's kind of like the movie I wrote, but not at all like the movie I wrote. It has no patience for subtlety. It has no patience for quiet moments. It has no patience period. It's big and loud and blunt and rephrased by the director at every possible turn. Cumulatively, the effect was a totally different movie. I don't know why Branagh needed to make this big, loud film...the material was subtle. Shelley's book was way out there in a lot of ways, but it's also very subtle. I don't know why it had to be this operatic attempt at filmmaking. Shelley's book is not operatic, it whispers at you a lot. The movie was a bad one. That was my Waterloo. That's where I really got my ass kicked most as a screenwriter..."
Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein, who starts the film as a man suffering from pneumonia who has been seeking to kill his creation, tracking it into the arctic. We go back to see how things became this dire, as Victor promises his mother, at her grave, that he will conquer death. For a time, he's joined by his teacher Professor Waldman (John Cleese), who warns him of the consequences of going against God and nature. After he's murdered (by an unnamed man played by Robert DeNiro, who goes on to play the creature that Frankenstein brings to life), his brain is used within the creature given the spark of life.
Victor is horrified by his creation's appearance and tries to kill him. In his nascent state, the creature is driven from town by the villagers. Even when he connects with an old blind man, it goes badly. Finally, he burns the farm of the man's family to the ground and declares war on his creator. He kills Frankenstein's brother William, sets up Justine, the family maid who has always loved the doctor and demands that his nemesis make him a mate. When he refuses, he murders Frankenstein's fiancee (Helena Bonham Carter) and forces him to bring her back to life. She's horrified at the way she looks and sets herself on fire, which brings us back to the cold ice floes and the close of the tale.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein may be imperfect, but DeNiro is absolutely incredible in the lead. He studied the way that stroke victims who have learned to speak again sound to get the right voice. I love the way he creates his own take on a creature that has been filmed so many times and his role is the absolute best thing in this movie.
Over the top
mark-187011 October 2020
This version is overly melodramatic in an effort to romanticize Shelly's novel and allow for the many actors a chance to put forth their acting chops.
The direction and acting remind me of older movies like 1939s Wuthering Heights where It was all about actors chewing the scenery helped with an epic soundtrack crescendoing to punctuate moments.
This is what reminded me why I like the original B&W version so much, it was so minimal and stark for its day. When I saw it on a large screen several years ago, it really scared me and I'd seen it on TV many many times before. Something about the silence at certain moments in the film created eery and shocking scenes that much "more".
As the creature In Branagh's version, De Niro's NY accent made me chuckle at times and HB Carter chose to ham it up as Elizabeth ( and in this version becomes the bride of the creature as well!! Yikes) I think there were too many famous named actor's to please, so they made each character an important enough role to extend this to nearly two and a half hours long (Maybe longer).
Now that's Self involved story telling.
Sorry, I know this will be an unpopular review, but it's honest.
Well designed and well intentioned, but there is something missing...
TheLittleSongbird25 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein certainly isn't a terrible film, far from it. In fact, it is a very good one, with some genuinely disturbing moments. I never did like the part when the monster tears out Elizabeth's heart, or any of the two hanging scenes, they disturbed me so much. I also felt there was something missing-Kenneth Branagh assures there is plenty of character development, and attention to detail,which is much appreciated, but sadly the film is a little soulless, and its cumbersome length probably doesn't help. Despite all this, there is much to be praised. The film is well designed, with splendid period detail with a superb score from Patrick Doyle, and benefits also from being fairly faithful to the source material. Kenneth Branagh does a good job directing, and delivers a fine performance as Victor Frankenstein, and Helena Bonham Carter looks beautiful as Elizabeth. Out of the more secondary roles, Tom Hulce is good as Henri Cleval, and Richard Briers gives a believable turn in the role of Felix. The best actor though in the movie, is Robert DeNiro as the monster- while his performance was genuinely terrifying at times, there are others when you feel sorry for him. Overall, a good film, undermined by lack of depth, but the detail and the performances salvage it from sinking into disaster. 7/10 Bethany Cox.
Sufficiently literary in feel, but it still changes too much from the novel
Leofwine_draca29 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Be Warned
that spoilers lie herein. Branagh's popular spin on the classic work of Gothic literature may stick fairly close to the origins of the story (certainly closer than the Karloff/Cushing adaptations) but it stills throws in far too many changes for my liking; we get a plague of cholera, Victor's mother dying in childbirth, Waldman getting stabbed, Elizabeth returning to life – I can understand why some of the changes, especially the latter, were made, in order to add more drama into what is a part-travelogue, part-letter driven narrative – but others serve no purpose I can think of. For instance, Clerval survives the film, but to what effect? None that I can think of.
The film has had a large amount of money spent on it, and the costumes, scenery, make up, and effects are all quite wonderful, aided nicely by an effectively sweeping Gothic score. The problem with this movie, then, lies in the characters and performances of the characters in the film. Although the movie is packed with British thespians, only the two leading men contribute efforts of any worth. Branagh is good, yes, but we're used to him being excellent, so being only good is a letdown. De Niro is great and throws an unusual spin on the emotional character of the Creature; I don't think anyone else could have been quite as convincing as he is here, and the scenes of his "birth" are the most moving in the film. I especially like the handling of the creature and the blind hermit (played by Richard Briers), the best bit of the film, without a doubt, but still changes have been made to the original tale (where did the children come from?).
Other noted characters – such as Cheri Lunghi and Ian Holm – are so far in the background that they barely register as people, just moving puppets instead. Holm is OTT but even that is swept aside by the orchestra and the bombast of the production. Tom Hulce is particularly bad as laughing-boy Clerval, his character poorly-sketched and inane, a far cry from the imaginative lover of nature portrayed in Shelley's story. John Cleese and Robert Hardy have fun in very minor parts as university lecturers but that's about it. Oh, and then there's Helena Bonham Carter; I usually like this unusual actress, but she's quite terrible in her early role here, and totally unconvincing as happy-go-lucky Elizabeth. Far more effective is her unsettling appearance as the deformed Bride, a bad-taste addition to the book which transforms Victor from a misguided saviour of mankind to a cold and ruthless killer who thinks nothing of sawing his fiancee's head clean off in order to serve his own foul purposes. How could Branagh and co. make such a profound error of judgement in order to throw in a few more ghoulish shocks into their movie? Horrific, maybe, but totally out of character for the earnest scientist.
I actually preferred BRAM STOKER'S Dracula to this movie, as it contained more Gothic flavour and atmosphere than this somewhat lacklustre offering, watchable but far from memorable, a fact which is even more galling considering the calibre of those involved.
The film has had a large amount of money spent on it, and the costumes, scenery, make up, and effects are all quite wonderful, aided nicely by an effectively sweeping Gothic score. The problem with this movie, then, lies in the characters and performances of the characters in the film. Although the movie is packed with British thespians, only the two leading men contribute efforts of any worth. Branagh is good, yes, but we're used to him being excellent, so being only good is a letdown. De Niro is great and throws an unusual spin on the emotional character of the Creature; I don't think anyone else could have been quite as convincing as he is here, and the scenes of his "birth" are the most moving in the film. I especially like the handling of the creature and the blind hermit (played by Richard Briers), the best bit of the film, without a doubt, but still changes have been made to the original tale (where did the children come from?).
Other noted characters – such as Cheri Lunghi and Ian Holm – are so far in the background that they barely register as people, just moving puppets instead. Holm is OTT but even that is swept aside by the orchestra and the bombast of the production. Tom Hulce is particularly bad as laughing-boy Clerval, his character poorly-sketched and inane, a far cry from the imaginative lover of nature portrayed in Shelley's story. John Cleese and Robert Hardy have fun in very minor parts as university lecturers but that's about it. Oh, and then there's Helena Bonham Carter; I usually like this unusual actress, but she's quite terrible in her early role here, and totally unconvincing as happy-go-lucky Elizabeth. Far more effective is her unsettling appearance as the deformed Bride, a bad-taste addition to the book which transforms Victor from a misguided saviour of mankind to a cold and ruthless killer who thinks nothing of sawing his fiancee's head clean off in order to serve his own foul purposes. How could Branagh and co. make such a profound error of judgement in order to throw in a few more ghoulish shocks into their movie? Horrific, maybe, but totally out of character for the earnest scientist.
I actually preferred BRAM STOKER'S Dracula to this movie, as it contained more Gothic flavour and atmosphere than this somewhat lacklustre offering, watchable but far from memorable, a fact which is even more galling considering the calibre of those involved.
The when-not-if sequel to ...
AlsExGal21 May 2020
... Francis Coppola's hit with Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), and which sank quickly at the theaters for not following in its parent's footsteps--Coppola had other projects, tried to give it to another director, and ended up with one of Kenneth Branagh's first few attempts at non-Shakespeare movies, which Coppola later tried to distance himself from. It's also one of the most omnipresent of the Sony/Columbia Orphans, just about every-darn-where on streaming (if your service has "Gattaca", "Fifth Element", "Resident Evil", "Last Action Hero", "Seventh Voyage of Sinbad" and "Dracula", rest assured this one will be nearby), and I'd thought I should finally get around to streaming it just to be curious about why it hadn't lived up to its pedigree in the theaters.
It's actually not bad, now that we know what to expect: Branagh's since moved away from Shakespeare (after "Hamlet", he could never get another one back in theaters), and now specializes in gloriously overproduced period epics with costume/production-design abandon. Back in 1994, we didn't think of Ken as "the director of Marvel's Thor and Disney's live-action Cinderella", but now that we do, it's a full-tilt exercise in period-production budget. Like Coppola's film, the idea was to (claim to) go back and explore the themes of the original novel, and Ken's performance and Frank Darabont's script does a good job with that, showing Victor Frankenstein as a privileged rich-kid medical student destroying everything for his one personal obsession, in a Regency-steampunk lab powered by electric eels instead of Universal-Horror lightning. Robert DeNiro is intended to play the monster, and does a good job with the book's idea of a verbose creature who questions his own existence, but he's playing it a little too DeNiro--With just a few stitch-scars and a big cloak, he comes off not so much as an unearthly creation, but more like the escaped criminal that Pip met at the beginning of "Great Expectations".
It's good viewing if you take the movie at its own face value--There's one scene that deliberately tries to copy Coppola's abstract, dreamlike "Dracula" style, presumably to give in to Francis's complaints, and it sticks out from the rest of the movie like a sore thumb. The movie goes at Branagh's own wildly enthusiastic cosplay pace, and like his Hamlet movie, Ken's default style seems to be, when in doubt, shoot the scene Big. The story's attempt to top itself at every plot point does start going a little overwrought by the climax, but we realize that while he may not have made a Coppola followup, what he's done is create the world's most expensive Hammer film...Which is not always a bad thing.
It's actually not bad, now that we know what to expect: Branagh's since moved away from Shakespeare (after "Hamlet", he could never get another one back in theaters), and now specializes in gloriously overproduced period epics with costume/production-design abandon. Back in 1994, we didn't think of Ken as "the director of Marvel's Thor and Disney's live-action Cinderella", but now that we do, it's a full-tilt exercise in period-production budget. Like Coppola's film, the idea was to (claim to) go back and explore the themes of the original novel, and Ken's performance and Frank Darabont's script does a good job with that, showing Victor Frankenstein as a privileged rich-kid medical student destroying everything for his one personal obsession, in a Regency-steampunk lab powered by electric eels instead of Universal-Horror lightning. Robert DeNiro is intended to play the monster, and does a good job with the book's idea of a verbose creature who questions his own existence, but he's playing it a little too DeNiro--With just a few stitch-scars and a big cloak, he comes off not so much as an unearthly creation, but more like the escaped criminal that Pip met at the beginning of "Great Expectations".
It's good viewing if you take the movie at its own face value--There's one scene that deliberately tries to copy Coppola's abstract, dreamlike "Dracula" style, presumably to give in to Francis's complaints, and it sticks out from the rest of the movie like a sore thumb. The movie goes at Branagh's own wildly enthusiastic cosplay pace, and like his Hamlet movie, Ken's default style seems to be, when in doubt, shoot the scene Big. The story's attempt to top itself at every plot point does start going a little overwrought by the climax, but we realize that while he may not have made a Coppola followup, what he's done is create the world's most expensive Hammer film...Which is not always a bad thing.
"Eventually, the best way to cheat death is to create life!"
classicsoncall2 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This may be someone's idea of the movie being the best adaptation of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" novel, but you can't prove it by me. It does start out convincingly enough but eventually goes off the rails with the creation of the Bride of Frankenstein using the same method that brought Robert De Niro to life as the Frankenstein Monster. You know, I had to laugh when the actor made his first appearance as the creature. A better choice might have been an unknown talent at the time because De Niro's celebrity comes through and it didn't quite work for me; I just kept seeing a disfigured De Niro in an uncharacteristic role.
The thing that made no sense to me was the manner in which Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) decided to bring Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) back to life. Assuming one could use a combination of some liquid suspension and electric eels to shock a dead body back to life, why take the long way around and chop up that body and mesh it with the body parts of another individual? Why not just use the shock treatment on the original subject without mutilating it? And even then, the disfigurement of Elizabeth's face apparently appeared to be done for shock value and no other discernible reason.
Perhaps the story's best takeaway is the pathos involved with The Creature bemoaning his fate, a tortured in spirit monster who harbors love and rage in his heart at the same time. In that respect, the picture's finale remains true to the premise of the story, that the creation of human life from the deceased can only result in an abomination. I will say this though, the movie inspired me to seek out the Mary Shelley novel that introduced Victor Frankenstein, et al, to the literary world. No strange coincidence, as the book was on a left over display of Halloween inspired material at my local library. Preferably I would have liked to read the book first before seeing the picture, but in this case, it probably doesn't matter all that much.
The thing that made no sense to me was the manner in which Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) decided to bring Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) back to life. Assuming one could use a combination of some liquid suspension and electric eels to shock a dead body back to life, why take the long way around and chop up that body and mesh it with the body parts of another individual? Why not just use the shock treatment on the original subject without mutilating it? And even then, the disfigurement of Elizabeth's face apparently appeared to be done for shock value and no other discernible reason.
Perhaps the story's best takeaway is the pathos involved with The Creature bemoaning his fate, a tortured in spirit monster who harbors love and rage in his heart at the same time. In that respect, the picture's finale remains true to the premise of the story, that the creation of human life from the deceased can only result in an abomination. I will say this though, the movie inspired me to seek out the Mary Shelley novel that introduced Victor Frankenstein, et al, to the literary world. No strange coincidence, as the book was on a left over display of Halloween inspired material at my local library. Preferably I would have liked to read the book first before seeing the picture, but in this case, it probably doesn't matter all that much.
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.
Rather good interpretation of the classic story...
paul_haakonsen17 May 2022
I remember watching this 1994 interpretation of the classic Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" story. And I do remember it as being a good movie back then. Oddly enough, then I never actually got around to watching it again before now in 2022.
Now, I have never actually read the novel, so I don't know how true to the source material this 1994 movie from writers Steph Lady and Frank Darabont is. But I will say that it does make for good entertainment. The story is nicely paced and takes the audience along on a visually and narratively interesting journey. Sure, we are all familiar with the story in smaller or greater detail, so no reason to flesh that out - pardon the pun.
Director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh did a good job with bringing the storyline and script to life on the screen. Sure, the movie is just oozing with archetypical early 1990s tropes for a horror movie such as this, but it does work out nicely enough for the movie.
Something that impressed me back then and still does impress today is the cast ensemble that they had for the movie. The movie is starring Robert De Niro, Kenneth Brannagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, John Cleese and Tom Hulce, to mention but a few of the talents here.
Visually then the movie is good. It never goes overboard with gore or gruesome details, so you are not in for 123 minutes of blood and gore. The visual effects and make-up prosthetics were good and realistic, and I do like the approach they had opted for to go with for the creature - you know, Frankenstein's monster, as played by Robert De Niro.
Despite being from 1994, then "Frankenstein" is a movie that is well-worth sitting down to watch, even now 28 years later.
My rating of "Frankenstein" lands on a seven out of ten stars.
Now, I have never actually read the novel, so I don't know how true to the source material this 1994 movie from writers Steph Lady and Frank Darabont is. But I will say that it does make for good entertainment. The story is nicely paced and takes the audience along on a visually and narratively interesting journey. Sure, we are all familiar with the story in smaller or greater detail, so no reason to flesh that out - pardon the pun.
Director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh did a good job with bringing the storyline and script to life on the screen. Sure, the movie is just oozing with archetypical early 1990s tropes for a horror movie such as this, but it does work out nicely enough for the movie.
Something that impressed me back then and still does impress today is the cast ensemble that they had for the movie. The movie is starring Robert De Niro, Kenneth Brannagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, John Cleese and Tom Hulce, to mention but a few of the talents here.
Visually then the movie is good. It never goes overboard with gore or gruesome details, so you are not in for 123 minutes of blood and gore. The visual effects and make-up prosthetics were good and realistic, and I do like the approach they had opted for to go with for the creature - you know, Frankenstein's monster, as played by Robert De Niro.
Despite being from 1994, then "Frankenstein" is a movie that is well-worth sitting down to watch, even now 28 years later.
My rating of "Frankenstein" lands on a seven out of ten stars.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bad editing....
tindfoting2 April 2022
The revival of Universals monsters ended here. Coppollas Dracula was an enormous success, so this came only two years later. And you had the mediocre Wolf with Jack Nicholson around the same time. The story is well known, don't mess with nature. I've never read Mary Shelley, so don't know how faitful Frank Darabount was when he wrote the script. BUT what could have been a great movie, falls apart in the seams with some very odd editing. Branagh, who both directs and plays Frankenstein bops around like a Formula 1 driver to start the story. First at the North Pole, then back to Frankenstein was a child, then grownup, then as a loudmouth student. We meet John Cleese as a very experimental scientist, who becomes Frankensteins mentor. And in what I thought was a flashback, we see him get killed. But it's not a flashback, it's the catalyst for Frankenstein to create a monster from his mentors killer. Very messy editing. In the end, the movie is a mix of omd Frankenstein and (IMO) the much better Bride of Frankenstein. Robert De Niro shows again why he was the best actor of his generation as the lonenly monster. Would be interesting to know how much of the editing is Brannagh, and how much was the execs wanted to shorten down the run time.
Frankenstein's Turn
view_and_review19 August 2020
In 1992 we got a romanticized version of Dracula. It seems that its success brought two like-minded movies in 1994: "Wolf" and "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Neither of them reached the acclaim level of "Bram Stokers' Dracula."
"Frankenstein" seemed too rushed. It was a big expensive production with a more than adequate budget. It had the look and feel as if they had to cut down a three hour movie to two. Things developed too quickly which made the key characters seem as though they were overly emotional and driven without a substantial motive.
All the proper elements were there for the movie to be as good as "Dracula": the budget, the cast, the set, and the story. If they could've slowed things down just a tad then the movie would've been so much better.
"Frankenstein" seemed too rushed. It was a big expensive production with a more than adequate budget. It had the look and feel as if they had to cut down a three hour movie to two. Things developed too quickly which made the key characters seem as though they were overly emotional and driven without a substantial motive.
All the proper elements were there for the movie to be as good as "Dracula": the budget, the cast, the set, and the story. If they could've slowed things down just a tad then the movie would've been so much better.
Almost a great film!
spencejoshua-2273617 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This film is so far removed from the book that it only makes sense to critique it on its own merit. The amount of work that Kenneth Branagh poured into this project was huge. Directing and starring in a film with such a large scope. His portrayal as Victor Frankenstein was specifically interesting. I thought he would be more solemn, unapproachable or insane , but Branagh decided to go with a very melodramatic character instead. At times this flamboyant figure retracted from the story. Actually, most of the characters had a similar personality and delivery. It was more like watching a play.
The film felt a little long to me. I'm thinking that too much footage from Victor's younger years was included. Everything seemed rushed. Even the delivery of the script came across as rushed. The screenplay had holes......some of the plot didn't fit together as well as it should have.
Fortunately, I did enjoy Robert De Niro's performance as the monster. The cinematography, the sets and filming locations were all great. There were some unique images. I believe my favorite was when the reanimated Elizabeth set herself on fire and ran through the mansion. I thought that was phenomenal.
Overall, it was a decent film that was almost a great film. I would watch it again.
The film felt a little long to me. I'm thinking that too much footage from Victor's younger years was included. Everything seemed rushed. Even the delivery of the script came across as rushed. The screenplay had holes......some of the plot didn't fit together as well as it should have.
Fortunately, I did enjoy Robert De Niro's performance as the monster. The cinematography, the sets and filming locations were all great. There were some unique images. I believe my favorite was when the reanimated Elizabeth set herself on fire and ran through the mansion. I thought that was phenomenal.
Overall, it was a decent film that was almost a great film. I would watch it again.
more overblown costume melodrama than horror
SnoopyStyle20 September 2014
In 1794, Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) is obsessed with reaching the North Pole. His ship is frozen in and he encounters Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) followed by his monster (Robert De Niro). It's back in 1773 Geneva. His father Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm) brings home the orphan Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) whom Victor loves as they grow up together. After the death of his mother, he vows to eliminate death. In 1793, he's studying in Ingolstadt under the tutelage of Professor Waldman (John Cleese) and befriends Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce). Waldman is experimenting with electricity inspired by the Chinese. When Waldman dies, Victor steals his notes and tries to create life despite Waldman's warnings.
This is more of a costume drama than a horror. There is a fundamental problem with director Kenneth Branagh's vision. It feels like a lifeless melodrama. He's better off to cut out much of the beginning. Most of it is unnecessary other than introducing Helena Bonham Carter and having his mother die. The monster should be the heart of this movie but it takes too long to get there. The grotesque is so close but Branagh holds back. Instead, he's concentrating on making a broad melodrama. This is the shameful part because the experiment and the monster is well done. The overblown melodrama actually fits that part of the movie. The inclusion of the original ice voyage is again unnecessary but at least, it's something different.
This is more of a costume drama than a horror. There is a fundamental problem with director Kenneth Branagh's vision. It feels like a lifeless melodrama. He's better off to cut out much of the beginning. Most of it is unnecessary other than introducing Helena Bonham Carter and having his mother die. The monster should be the heart of this movie but it takes too long to get there. The grotesque is so close but Branagh holds back. Instead, he's concentrating on making a broad melodrama. This is the shameful part because the experiment and the monster is well done. The overblown melodrama actually fits that part of the movie. The inclusion of the original ice voyage is again unnecessary but at least, it's something different.
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.
Visually impressive but still a disappointment...
Doylenf11 October 2010
KENNETH BRANAGH gives dramatic Shakespearean treatment to Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, playing every scene as if he's in a Greek tragedy of tremendous depth. His over-the-top histrionics become increasingly overwhelming as the film goes on and on, badly needing some tightening in story structure. Instead, it comes across vividly in bits and pieces, stitched together much the way the monster itself was created by Victor Frankenstein.
There are genuinely frightful moments with creepiness made more effective by Patrick Doyle's score, but there are equally moments that serve no purpose in the story and are there simply for shock effect, such as the mother's death during childbirth.
ROBERT DiNIRO has to suffer beneath extravagantly scarred make-up but does a creditable job as the creature. Despite the realistic make-up, he's never as scary as Boris Karloff in the original Universal film nor does he ever overact the role the way Branagh does with Victor Frankenstein.
HELENA BONHAM CARTER is fine as Elizabeth and has some shocking moments toward the film's climax. Visually the film has some majestic photography and the special effects for the fire scenes are both realistic and gruesome.
This may be a more faithful rendering of the "Frankenstein" tale, but due to clumsy story structure and length, it's never tight enough to produce the kind of thrills it was after.
There are genuinely frightful moments with creepiness made more effective by Patrick Doyle's score, but there are equally moments that serve no purpose in the story and are there simply for shock effect, such as the mother's death during childbirth.
ROBERT DiNIRO has to suffer beneath extravagantly scarred make-up but does a creditable job as the creature. Despite the realistic make-up, he's never as scary as Boris Karloff in the original Universal film nor does he ever overact the role the way Branagh does with Victor Frankenstein.
HELENA BONHAM CARTER is fine as Elizabeth and has some shocking moments toward the film's climax. Visually the film has some majestic photography and the special effects for the fire scenes are both realistic and gruesome.
This may be a more faithful rendering of the "Frankenstein" tale, but due to clumsy story structure and length, it's never tight enough to produce the kind of thrills it was after.
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.
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.
One of the best horror stories of all time, truly a wonderful movie
Smells_Like_Cheese29 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
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
Despite a miscast monster and some serious issues with the break-neck pacing, "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" still delivers as a solid take on the classic tale of horror.
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness12 October 2016
Ask a random group of people for a list of the most recognizable faces of horror, and chances are the name "Frankenstein" will appear somewhat on that list. And why shouldn't it? Since the creation of the characters near 200 years ago, Frankenstein (or more correctly "Frankenstein's monster") has become an icon of not only horror, but of popular culture in general. With dozens of film adaptations, spin- off works, comics, video games and other examples in just about every other conceivable medium, the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster is the stuff of legend!
One of the more peculiar entries in this vast franchise however has to be director Kenneth Branagh's hotly debated and polarizing 1994 adaptation "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Conceived of as a sort-of sibling to Francis Ford Coppola's popular 90's "Dracula" feature, the film was subject to some behind-the-scenes drama and was met with mixed reception from critics and fans alike. But beyond all of the drama and second guessing, does the film itself work? Beyond the he-said, she-said... is it a good movie when it all comes down to it?
...pretty much. It's not the best of the adaptations based around the story, and believe me, it has problems a plenty. But I can't say it was a failure, and if you asked, I'd have to admit that when it comes to "Frankenstein" on screen... it's pretty good.
We all know the story. A brilliant doctor who is trying to find the cure to death itself. The monster he creates in his attempts to discover the key to creating life. And the tragedy to follow. What sets this particular take on the tale apart is the sheer thrills of director Branagh's (who also stars) visual direction and the wide and varied cast that populates the story. And for the most part, they are the highlights here.
Branagh's got a keen visual sense, this much is evident from his vast array of work. Everything from his Shakespeare adaptations to even his more mainstream work like the Marvel Studios flick "Thor" oozes his kinetic and hyper-real style. And that's on full-display here. I get the feeling that Branagh is trying to mold the film to reflect the manic excitement of Victor himself, and I do think it's an interesting new way to present the story. With flowing camera-work, tilted angles and wild editing, you really get the feeling of how obsessed Frankenstein is in his attempts to create life and how it all implodes around him due to the unforeseen circumstances of his experiments. It's almost shot more akin to a high-stakes action picture than a tale of Gothic horror, but it works for the most part. Although it can be an occasional detriment during the slower scenes of character and story development. Something co-writer Frank Darabont has bemoaned in some interviews, as he viewed the film as a slower and more dramatic character piece. Still, I think that Branagh's wild eye meshes well with the story being told. He just needs to stop drinking so much caffeine during the slower and more deliberate scenes!
The cast is a great deal of fun. Branagh makes for a wonderfully crazed new Victor with the giddiness and the excitement of a schoolboy who simply cannot deal with personal tragedy. Helena Bonham Carter makes for a fantastic Elizabeth, despite often being relegated to the sidelines and you really do root for her and Victor's relationship. Classic actor Tom Hulce is a blast as Victor's best friend. And supporting roles by the likes of John Cleese and Ian Holm are all exceptionally well cast.
Then there's the monster. Oh boy. Look, I love Robert De Niro, and I'm sure if I wasn't as aware of him as I am that I'd like his version of the monster even more... but there's no getting around it. When you watch the film, you're not seeing a tragic figure of a monster who feels betrayed and abandoned. You're seeing Robert De Niro under heavy makeup. He's trying his hardest and it's a decent performance, but I can't help but feel it's a major miscast because it's so distracting and once or twice it will take you out of the movie.
Beyond that, the production is top notch. Patrick Doyle's dark score is haunting and tragic, and is among my favorites of the decade. Roger Pratt's cinematography is absolutely stunning and is lush and wild and dreary and all things that the story call for. Magnificent work. Tim Harvey and James Acheson deliver a splendid one-two punch with their work in production and costume design, giving everything a realistic but stylish flair to augment Victor's crazed energy. (Don't get me started on Victor's fantastic laboratory set!) And all others involved are on-game in the best of ways.
The only major aspect of the production I must question is the editing, which in conjunction with Branagh's deranged visuals causes many a problem and is where the film loses some points. This is just a psychotically edited movie. Yes, I understand the purpose behind it... but it feels disjointed and scattershot as a result, with far too many scenes beginning and ending on a whim without proper establishment or payoff, and some cutting that feels sloppy due to the editor and Branagh trying to fit in as many angles and shots as possible. It's a big problem here and I get the feeling that it's where the film will lose a lot of people.
Still, for my money, the excellent cast and visually arresting direction trump these issues for the most part. It may have benefited from more deliberate pacing and a different choice of monster... but it's not a bad film for these issues. Merely a troubled one.
And so, I'm giving "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" a pretty-good 7 out of 10. Worth seeing for fans looking for a slightly different spin on the iconic classic.
One of the more peculiar entries in this vast franchise however has to be director Kenneth Branagh's hotly debated and polarizing 1994 adaptation "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Conceived of as a sort-of sibling to Francis Ford Coppola's popular 90's "Dracula" feature, the film was subject to some behind-the-scenes drama and was met with mixed reception from critics and fans alike. But beyond all of the drama and second guessing, does the film itself work? Beyond the he-said, she-said... is it a good movie when it all comes down to it?
...pretty much. It's not the best of the adaptations based around the story, and believe me, it has problems a plenty. But I can't say it was a failure, and if you asked, I'd have to admit that when it comes to "Frankenstein" on screen... it's pretty good.
We all know the story. A brilliant doctor who is trying to find the cure to death itself. The monster he creates in his attempts to discover the key to creating life. And the tragedy to follow. What sets this particular take on the tale apart is the sheer thrills of director Branagh's (who also stars) visual direction and the wide and varied cast that populates the story. And for the most part, they are the highlights here.
Branagh's got a keen visual sense, this much is evident from his vast array of work. Everything from his Shakespeare adaptations to even his more mainstream work like the Marvel Studios flick "Thor" oozes his kinetic and hyper-real style. And that's on full-display here. I get the feeling that Branagh is trying to mold the film to reflect the manic excitement of Victor himself, and I do think it's an interesting new way to present the story. With flowing camera-work, tilted angles and wild editing, you really get the feeling of how obsessed Frankenstein is in his attempts to create life and how it all implodes around him due to the unforeseen circumstances of his experiments. It's almost shot more akin to a high-stakes action picture than a tale of Gothic horror, but it works for the most part. Although it can be an occasional detriment during the slower scenes of character and story development. Something co-writer Frank Darabont has bemoaned in some interviews, as he viewed the film as a slower and more dramatic character piece. Still, I think that Branagh's wild eye meshes well with the story being told. He just needs to stop drinking so much caffeine during the slower and more deliberate scenes!
The cast is a great deal of fun. Branagh makes for a wonderfully crazed new Victor with the giddiness and the excitement of a schoolboy who simply cannot deal with personal tragedy. Helena Bonham Carter makes for a fantastic Elizabeth, despite often being relegated to the sidelines and you really do root for her and Victor's relationship. Classic actor Tom Hulce is a blast as Victor's best friend. And supporting roles by the likes of John Cleese and Ian Holm are all exceptionally well cast.
Then there's the monster. Oh boy. Look, I love Robert De Niro, and I'm sure if I wasn't as aware of him as I am that I'd like his version of the monster even more... but there's no getting around it. When you watch the film, you're not seeing a tragic figure of a monster who feels betrayed and abandoned. You're seeing Robert De Niro under heavy makeup. He's trying his hardest and it's a decent performance, but I can't help but feel it's a major miscast because it's so distracting and once or twice it will take you out of the movie.
Beyond that, the production is top notch. Patrick Doyle's dark score is haunting and tragic, and is among my favorites of the decade. Roger Pratt's cinematography is absolutely stunning and is lush and wild and dreary and all things that the story call for. Magnificent work. Tim Harvey and James Acheson deliver a splendid one-two punch with their work in production and costume design, giving everything a realistic but stylish flair to augment Victor's crazed energy. (Don't get me started on Victor's fantastic laboratory set!) And all others involved are on-game in the best of ways.
The only major aspect of the production I must question is the editing, which in conjunction with Branagh's deranged visuals causes many a problem and is where the film loses some points. This is just a psychotically edited movie. Yes, I understand the purpose behind it... but it feels disjointed and scattershot as a result, with far too many scenes beginning and ending on a whim without proper establishment or payoff, and some cutting that feels sloppy due to the editor and Branagh trying to fit in as many angles and shots as possible. It's a big problem here and I get the feeling that it's where the film will lose a lot of people.
Still, for my money, the excellent cast and visually arresting direction trump these issues for the most part. It may have benefited from more deliberate pacing and a different choice of monster... but it's not a bad film for these issues. Merely a troubled one.
And so, I'm giving "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" a pretty-good 7 out of 10. Worth seeing for fans looking for a slightly different spin on the iconic classic.
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.
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.
a distinguished dramatic frankenstein
rose_automnale2 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 :)))
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
