Frankenstein (TV Mini-Series 2004– ) Poster

(2004– )

User Reviews

Review this title
33 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Excellent adaptation
Cheerful_Dragon5 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the story of Frankenstein the way Mary Shelley wrote it. A running time of nearly 3 hours gives the story time to develop. Use of less well-known actors allows you to see the characters (although a good actor should allow that anyway). Luke Goss was good as the monster, better than I expected from an ex-rock star. He really made me feel sympathy for the Creature. Only two things grated a little: William Hurt's German accent was corny, and they insisted on using electricity to reanimate the Creature (Mary Shelley doesn't say how it was done).

Other than that, it's the best adaptation I've ever seen. In fact, at the end my husband said, "I never realised that 'Frankenstein' isn't a horror story. It's a tragedy." So well done to the film-makers for breaking the mould.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
What a visual pleasure
puckclaes23 November 2004
I read the book years ago, and loved it. I also saw the Kenneth Brannagh version and was pleased. So I was wondering what new things this version would bring me. I bought the DVD because of Sutherland and Harris. And when I watched it, I recognized the story, of course. But yet, I was really entertained. it was new, it was above all beautiful. The cinematography was very good, sharp en sinister. A real new movie. This was good stuff. And I will see this once again. 176 minutes is a long way to watch. I planned it over two evenings but went straight to the end and midnight. This means something. I recommend it for an entertaining night.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Faithful adaptation
montague-423 April 2005
If you want to view a movie that has at its core Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, this is the one for you. Don't try to compare it to other film versions! Better yet, re-read the novel, then view this film. 100% what Shelley intended. From the opening scene to the reminder that the viewer is hearing Victor tell his story to Captain Walton, you are in the novel. The scenery is authentic, the dialog superb. No, it's not a blockbuster, but it is a truer adaptation of the novel. I have long been a fan of science fiction, and it is refreshing to see a movie that does not so depart from the original story as to be almost unrecognizable.
27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Hallmark Frankenstein 2004 - One Great Film
swede059034 February 2006
Having seen all of the "old" versions of Frankenstein, I was somewhat surprised to have yet another version of this film arrive in my mail, a gift from my daughter. "See what you think," she challenged. Although it seemed to take a long time to actually get into the story, once there, I was captivated. Apart from the fantastic scenery, great cast and literary accuracy, one more thing held my interest. As a researcher of human psychology and abnormal psychiatry, this film (hands down) is one to provoke serious contemplation of what makes people do what they do or don't do. I have watched it twice already and have plans on doing so again in the near future; it's that good.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A fanciful retelling of Mary Shelley's novel
T. J. (Xanthochroid)8 November 2004
When I first stumbled upon this film while channel-surfing, I thought it was a bad vampire movie. After listening closely to the dialogue, I realized that this was Frankenstein. Not only was it Frankenstein, but it was the most true-to-the-novel Frankenstein I'd ever seen.

Generally made for TV movies aren't a double thumbs up, but this was actually very enjoyable. The acting was well and the scenery was gorgeous. I was very satisfied at how superb a job Hallmark did on Mary Shelly's classic.

If one wishes to see a more Universal-type Frankenstein, look no further than Boris Karloff's version. If, however, one is tired of Frankenstein remakes after Frankenstein remakes, all modeled after the Hollywood tellings and not Shelley's piece, then one will be pleased with Hallmark's version.

I give this an eight out of ten.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The best version of the movie so far...
Michael Field21 November 2004
This version of Frankenstein is by far the best and truest version of the classic book written by Mary Shelley; both in content and intent. A true feeling for the period that this book was written in can be felt in this film. This is not the "Hollywood-let's re-write the story-Kennith Brannagh, DeNero-version" and it is not overacted. It is the story as it was meant to be told; with all the pathos, depth and empathy that it was intended to inspire, as well as horror. I am impressed by Alec Newman,(dune) once again, and Luke Goss gives an outstanding performance. Sutherland and Hurt, as always, shine. Finally, there is a more-than-watchable version of the first true science fiction story ever written.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
For lovers of the original...
vassal_handmaiden19 January 2005
If you have actually read Frankenstein and despaired of ever seeing a good portrayal of the Creature on screen, then you MUST see this version of Mary Shelley's work. Finally, Hallmark has produced a relatively faithful version (changes, such as increased time for the love-story between Victor and Elizabeth, are reasonable and do not alter the original tenor of the work) with an excellent cast. Luke Goss' Creature is eloquent and highly sympathetic, with a beautiful, plaintive voice that is utterly convincing--as is proper. To demonstrate: my father has never read the story and is a big fan of Branagh's wretched film (don't get me wrong, I like Ken, just not that film), but he watched this version with me and exclaimed about halfway through: ''Wow, I never thought of the Monster's problem like that. Frankenstein is really horrible! Why doesn't he just do what the Creature asks? I mean, his life sucks and he just wants some happiness. Frankenstein is such a jerk!'' If the original message of the story can reach my father, then anyone who loves the original will enjoy this film all the more. William Hurt is very enjoyable as always, and Alec Newman does a fine job making himself less and less appealing (and yet more and more interesting) as the story progresses. (It's interesting how his unusual facial features appear as distorted as the Creature's on certain occasions.) All-in-all, a comprehensive and beautiful adaptation, almost sure to please anyone with a love of the book.
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
I liked it
Alex Haladay17 March 2005
I liked this version. Sutherland and Hurt were good in this. In the beginning the acting seemed kind of bad but Alex Newman did a great job in this. For me, he really saved the beginning. I never saw the DeNero version so I can't say anything about it but I did see the Boris version and I did read the book and I have to say that it did impress me.Hurt was good, Goss was good, Sutherland was good,but Newman really made this movie I think. As for people saying that the dialog was annoying, it was annoying in the book too. Slow scenes were the same in the book. All in all, it was a good screening of the book. I liked having an articulate creature, it was how I pictured in while reading it. If the other actors had better acting in it, It would have raised the 'out of 10' rating for me.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
excellent--better than Branagh's version
edgoodwyn14 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Having grown up seeing the 'bolts in the neck', flat-headed Frankenstein's monster that has been filmed, screened, parodied, etc since time immemorial (or at least 1931), I finally was able to sit down and actually read Shelley's Frankenstein one August evening several years ago. I was unable to put it down. Shelley's story of Gothic hubris, love and tragedy--note, not much horror, really--totally captivated me. I was driven to read the novella in one night. So naturally when I found out Kenneth Branagh did a version of the tale in the 90s I was excited. Then, unfortunately for me, I watched it. What an over-the-top, overblown mess! The pacing hurtled us forward at such speed I thought I was watching the RD version of the story, taking pause only long enough for Branagh to wrestle naked with The Creature for 5 minutes in a vat of slime, causing me to utter an involuntary 'what the ****?' The acting was ridiculous as well, with otherwise fine actors all cranking up the volume to 11 and doing nothing but either shouting uncontrollably or whispering menacingly and nothing in between.

The only saving grace of that whole affair was Deniro's monster--but he still wasn't quite right...ugly, bald, and short. Not what Shelley described. Shelley didn't describe a flat-headed bolt-necked mumbling hulk either, but I have yet to see the Boris Karloff version so I withhold judgment on that film until I see it. This probably puts me in the minority of Frankenstein viewers (people who read the novel before seeing any film adaptations, except maybe 'Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein').

Which brings me to this Hallmark adaptation. Finally, I feel, Hollywood has gotten it right. Go figure--it's because this version actually stays close to the source material, and it is excellent because of it. The Creature, for one, looks exactly as I pictured him in the novel, probably because...he looks the way he is described! Is this so difficult to accomplish? It must have been, because nowhere has it been done right before. Other commentators have complained that the Creature in this version is too sympathetic, too well spoken, too well read, etc. My comment to this is--read the book! The Creature was not a hulking horror or a twisted goblin, he was tall, gaunt and creepy (like he is here), but also tormented emotionally and highly self-educated, and it is easy to sympathize with him, just as in the novel.

To anyone unfamiliar with the source material it may be a surprise: Frankenstein is not a horror story. It is a Gothic melodrama, a Greek tragedy, an early science fiction story (that has been mimicked a zillion times, Jurassic Park is a good example). In fact, the subtitle for Shelley's classic is 'Frankenstein, or, A Modern Day Prometheus'. But Hollywood has taken the atmosphere of the novel and insisted that this be a horror story (for a horror story, read Poe, or perhaps Bram Stoker's Dracula, another novel that has been poorly interpreted dozens of times).

Everything is done well, from the excessively beautiful home of the Frankensteins to the smoky, brooding laboratory. The acting is fine throughout, with no missteps, if no brilliant performances, although the lead has several good moments of madness. But overall, the spirit of the book shines through everywhere in this adaptation--it isn't perfect, but it is the best so far to capture the moral ambiguity, the tragic darkness and the psychological horror (secondarily). And the Creature looks just right, with his flowing rags, scarred and moribund presence, and his tortured soul.

My only quibble is the 'science' of the story. Shelley made a point that Frankenstein would not reveal how he accomplished reanimation. Here it is explained that simply shocking a dead body will reverse death. This would have been more effective had much less been explained about how he did it. But that is a minor point. 8/10 from me.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Although Unnecessary, I Liked This Dramatic Adaptation of this Classic Novel
Claudio Carvalho22 December 2005
Since I was a kid, I am fascinated for the romantic and dramatic tale of Frankenstein, and I have probably seen all the adaptations released in Brazil. This television version was a nice surprise for me: although unnecessary, I liked very much since it is not a simple remake. The locations are wonderful, and the film is very well produced. I liked also the dramatic performance of the unknown Luke Goss in the role of the needy creature; his character clearly expresses the need to be loved and to love. Donald Sutherland is great as usual, and Alec Newman does not disappoint in the role of the scientist Viktor Frankenstein. The DVD released in Brazil has 154 minutes running time, and when I see in IMDb that in USA the DVD has 204 min and in UK, 268 min, I dare to say that the edition in Brazil was perfect, with a fluent continuity. I really do not know which parts were cut, but certainly they were not important. But I noted the minor participation of Julie Delpy in very few scenes. Last but not the least, it is very weird that many favorable reviews are made by users with only one review issued in IMDb. This movie is good and does not need this type of apparently fake promotion. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein"
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Finally, the book comes to the screen
rooprect16 December 2009
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who have read Frankenstein and those who haven't. I urge everyone to join the ranks of the former. Mary Shelly's novel is one of the greatest tales since Faust, full of philosophy, theology and studies of the human condition. It ain't about a green lummox with electricians boots and bolts through his neck, lumbering through villages as if he's murderously constipated.

In this adaptation, we get the original intent of the author. The creature is a protagonist, not a villain. He is intelligent, well spoken, driven by the same thing that drives most of us: a desire to love & be loved. And like any newborn child, he doesn't know the rules of society and morality, although he learns quickly.

If you expect to see a horror flick, you'll be very disappointed. There aren't many scares in this movie, and there's a lot of dialogue which may make things seem slow. In fact, a cursory glance at comments tells me that most of the negative opinions were from students who were forced to watch this for a lit class, and they thought it was too long. Sure. But that's how books are, kids. Overall, this was a pretty faithful re-telling.

In particular, I was thrilled to see that this film stayed true to the book by relating the whole story through flashbacks told to the Arctic ship captain (excellently played by Donald Sutherland). This creates an "envelope" around the tale which adds suspense and chills, literally.

Another highlight was the showdown between the creature and his creator. This was brilliantly done, shot in a superb mountaintop setting in Slovakia, and the acting talents of both Goss & Newman really came through.

Other scenes were not as impressive, and at times you might find yourself thinking it's a bit melodramatic. But at least it didn't sink into Kenneth Branagh territory ;) A small criticism I have is that I didn't quite understand the importance of William Hurt's character who was invented solely for this film (not in the book). His presence did add something to the production, but at the same time it introduced a new sub-theme that may have taken away from the original focus. Eh, who cares, Hurt did a good job and I found myself wishing he had more scenes.

Oh, one big gripe I have is that they suddenly made the creature kill at random, even mangling poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits. Wassup wit dat? It's like Mary Shelley meets Glenn Close. lol. I guess the filmmakers added that to wake up the audience a bit.

Luke Goss (the creature) is the shining star of this production. It's odd, because in the DVD interviews he admits to never having read the book; yet his portrayal was right on ...truly the best depiction of the creature I've ever seen, conveying both ferocity and intellect while eliciting our sympathies. For that, I think this is a great work which, I would hope, might tear down the goofy image of the monster we've lived with for the last 80 years.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Frankenstein
Rin Hoshigumo20 April 2012
Initially, I found this adaptation rather slow-paced for my tastes, but having got through it, I reckon it mustbe the best adaptation; not because I've read the book, but because, for the first time, I'm inspired to. I never before thought that The Creature could have been beautiful. Oh, there was the film with Michael Sarandon as the initially gorgeous Creature, but that was an entirely different sort of beauty. Goss' Creature was beautiful, but in an eldritch way. It wasn't a reassuring beauty. It was a beauty that was all wrong, that should never have come into being and had all the hallmarks of its cadaverous inception. At times, Goss' sensitive portrayal of The Creature's anguish was almost too painful to watch. Scenes of The Creature's suffering juxtaposed with those of Victor's oblivion to it made me hate Victor in a way I never had before, to the point that when this suffering actually encroached on Victor's own life, I actually felt gratified. There was an understatement to the whole piece that made it all the more nightmarish. It clearly showed how people need to find a scapegoat and the dangers of playing God when one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being God. The sad thing about this story is that it didn't have to be this way. Each character made his own choices and did not have to respond to his circumstances in the way that he chose to. It's even sadder that they were blind to this fact till it was too late.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Best Story of Frankenstein
metallicajoeyh31 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie of Frankenstein matched Mary Shelley's story the best of all movies. The creature was depicted exactly like the novel described and the story is more of a tragedy. Before this movie I thought of a green square headed monster with bolts in its neck, terrible speech and pure evil. After seeing this, my views have changed. The creature was not evil, he was hurt and when he killed Elizabeth and cried afterward showed he wasn't evil. I loved at the end when he got upset because Victor died and asked Walton "who did this?" and then realized what he did was heartbreaking. In my views, I would not run or hurt the creature because honestly he has a human soul. Frankenstein is a terrific movie!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
If you liked the book..........
extantabstractxx19 April 2010
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Readers of the Novel Rejoice!
jwstewartii16 July 2015
I watched this for the first time on Encore. Since I don't normally watch Hallmark, I never saw the movie until Encore showed it probably for the umpteenth time this week, and that was only because I was channel surfing. Fortunately I came in during the first fifteen minutes of the first part. I actually enjoyed this version better than any other because it truly follows Mary Shelley's novel. This is the true Frankenstein. Not a horror story, but, as one poster said, a tragedy.

For younger viewers and anyone not familiar with the novel, it may be viewed as slow and probably even boring. Those who read the original material, however, will enjoy this film better than any of the past versions. Kenneth Branagh's take was close, but Kevin Connor truly followed Shelley's work.

I haven't read the novel since I was a teen but have always remembered how it differed from all the movies except Branagh's. I saw Boris Karloff's original film long before I read the book, and I was completely surprised when I learned how much they differed. The Hammer Films were based more on Universal's film. When Branagh's film hit the screen, I thought it was the closest version to the novel. This one, however, along with its cinematography is truly faithful to the original source material. That is something rare in movies. It probably would never have made its way to the theaters due to its length and lack of real action until the latter stage.

I must add viewing this movie 11 years after its release has made me realize what I've missed on the Hallmark Channel. I need to start reviewing what's being shown on that network more often. No telling what other classic adaptations I've missed. Thank you, Encore, for showing it in full without commercials.

=0=
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Need to study for your test on "Frankenstein"? Try watching this
Adam Foidart11 December 2014
Kevin Connor's "Frankenstein" (not to be confused with the other 2004 "Frankenstein" film based on "Dean Koontz's Frankenstein") is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel by Mary Shelley and if that's what you're looking for, you'll be very satisfied. This 3 1/2 hr made for television film leaves out few details (sometimes to a fault) and while it makes a few changes, these are very minor and for big fans of the book, it will be a pleasant experience. The downside is that the movie does not really attempt anything new with the material, even when it comes to the monster's design. For people who are big fans of the story, like myself it did at times make me wish a bit more freedom had been given to the people in charge. The movie aims to make us feel sympathetic to both the creature and the doctor and it succeeds, with good performances from Luke Goss and Alec Newman. The same can't be aid for all of the child actors, but otherwise it's convincing in its performances and as compelling as the original source material. You'll be hard pressed to find a more faithful adaptation so if you needed a refresher of the story or if you are studying the book this is a great watch. (On DVD, July 29, 2012)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The most faithful portrayal of the creature!
CountVladDracula26 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
For a very long time I was on a quest to find a faithful film adaptation of Frankenstein that followed the plot and physical appearance of the creature from the novel. Just last week a friend suggested I check out the 2004 version of Frankenstein starring Luke Goss as the creature. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised to find that it would be Hallmark that finally made a version of Frankenstein that actually followed the novel. The film from 1994 actually called "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" was not as faithful as the title would imply. It had the creature bald with a distorted eye and speaking like a stroke victim. It also had Elizabeth's heart torn out of her chest and then brought back in the style of the Frankenstein creature.

For years after that I had searched for a version of Frankenstein that had a creature portrayed the way he is described in the novel.

First let us begin with the popular idea of the Frankenstein monster. Everyone imagines the creature as a simple minded, green skinned creature with a flat topped head, and bolts in his neck.

I don't understand the popularity of the "simple minded" Frankenstein creature. I know it was popularized over eighty years ago now thanks to Boris Karloff but think about it. In the actual novel the creature figured out how to dress himself (and that he'd need clothes!) in a matter of moments after his "birth". He learned to read and write (or remembered it) in a matter of months. That's equatable to an eleven-month-old baby with an adult reading level. He could read, write, was as articulate as his creator, if not even more so. He even had a favorite work of literature (Paradise lost). That's not a simple minded creature. That's a super genius in the making. I'd like to see more intelligent incarnations of the Frankenstein creature but not pretentious (as he was pretentious in the film Van Helsing). For good intelligent incarnations of the creature check out the 2004 Hallmark version of Frankenstein staring Luke Goss, Ultrasylvania (web comic / graphic novel), and perhaps to a lesser extent (because he still moves and talks like a stroke victim) the Robert de Niro version.

Not only did this version (The Hallmark version from 2004 starring Luke Goss as the creature) have the creature physically look like, talk like, and move like the literary version of the creature but it also restored one of the novel's secondary morals. Everyone remembers that Frankenstein teaches you not to tamper with nature but most people forget that it also had the creature learn (a bit too late) that revenge was not the answer and that revenge would bring him no peace. In my opinion this was as important a message as that of not tampering with nature. So why do so many film versions leave this aspect of the story out all together? Why are only the inaccurate or incomplete versions remembered? It's not fair that this version of Frankenstein is almost entirely obscure.

Here's where I am going to get a little nitpicky. It's a very good adaptation. The biggest changes deal with Victor's mother's death (in the novel she dies before he sees lightning strike a tree, not after). Also later in the story another body (after Elizabeth's death) is blamed on the creature in a village but it could be that someone died by coincidence that the creature (happening to be there) got blamed for it. Oh, and the creature's eyes. They're blue in this and yellow in the book. And Victor's father lives but seems to be going crazy. In the novel I thought he committed suicide. But these are petty details. This version is probably the most faithful I've seen. And the creature is VERY accurate.

The creature is the best thing about this film. If you want to see the creature the way Mary Shelley intended him to be, watch this version of Frankenstein. Admittedly there are a few dull parts and some parts that felt unnecessary as filler and dragged on a bit but this was the most faithful adaptation of the book and is unfortunately highly under-rated. Luke Goss is simply the best portrayal of the creature I have ever seen.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Hallmark Gave Frankenstein a New Face LIFT!
whpratt17 October 2004
Any time "Frankenstein" is shown, whether in 1931 or to this present day, this story will remain basically the same, however, in this TV presentation, Hallmark gave the story more reality with its great photography of the countryside and the local people who were very colorful and enjoyable to view. Luke Goss,(Creature),"Cold & Dark",'04, gave an outstanding performance as a man made creature who has to learn his lessons about life from a mother teaching her little girl in the backyard. Alec Newman,(Victor Frankenstein),"Bright Young Things",'03, brought a frog back to life and a dog and drove his professor, William Hurt,(Waldman),"Body Heat",'81, absolutely CRAZY trying to tell him he could bring the dead back to life. The professor kept telling him over and over, "God is the only Person to Give LIFE". I enjoyed seeing Donald Sutherland,(Captain Walton),"A Time to Kill",'96 appearing on a sort of Ghost Ship sitting in foggy, ice bound waters. I will always love Boris Karloff as Frankenstein,in 1931, however, this was a great attempt to make Frankenstein more up to date with this CENTURY!
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
getting even with Dad....
ccmiller14924 July 2009
Yes, this is the truest version to the original novel but as entertainment it is far less satisfying than the previous miniseries adaptation by Christopher Isherwood. It is overlong and tediously embroiders and elaborates on family and courtship that have little to do with the story. Admittedly it is well acted, but Goss is less repulsive than Alice Cooper, Kiss and others of that ilk and so doesn't seem to justify the horror he inspires on sight. Would an entire village beat and chase a creepy looking lamed man just for filching a loaf of bread because he's hungry? Does outsize height, pallor, orange peel skin and Gothic make-up terrorize to that degree? And why are dead corpses constantly lying around in a cemetery unburied,uncovered and apparently ripe for the picking?

Some judicious cutting would improve this product immensely. Henry and Elizabeth, for example could be almost deleted for a major improvement alone. Much of Hurt's pedantic professor turns likewise. At least it's good to know that jumper cables were invented in the mid 1800's, even though there were no autos to use them on. Perhaps that's why they began to be used by doctors when hearts stopped?
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Nothng New in this Remake
jbdean26 July 2004
The highlights and shining moments lie solely in those belonging to William Hurt and Donald Sutherland ... and even they aren't given much that's new to work with.

The film starts out so similar to the version done by Kenneth Brannagh that one thinks it might just be that film they're getting ready to watch. Only until we see Donald Sutherland do we realize that it's a newly done remake. Yet with few exceptions to the plot, it's not hard to mentally replace each character with those done in the version that had DeNiro as the patchwork monster of Dr. Frankenstein.

Lacking the passion of the lovers that is needed to believe that the young doctor has lost everything to live for when his young bride is murdered, the film is fraught with slow moments, stiff dialog and a monster that looks like a rock star and sounds like a polished English gentleman.

However, the photography is marvelous but this can't save a film that has been done too many times and brings nothing new to this version. The supporting cast of Mrs. and Mr. Frankenstein and Victor as a child are weak and often done over the top. Henry, sadly, has little to contribute and seems to be there only because he was written into the script.

Television is the best venue for this production as it's simply not worth the cost of a movie ticket if it were playing on the big screen.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Close but no cigar
meatcamp19 April 2005
Valiant effort, but still not quite there. In trying to remain faithful to the book, I felt that this made-for-TV movie hit the key scenes, but failed in connecting them in the in-between moments.

I just finished reading the book when I rented this movie, and I was surprised at how faithful it was to the book (except for a few scenes and a few additions). I also was surprised at how far Hollywood has strayed from the source material in all other incarnations of this story.

I was very happy to see a faithful translation, but the whole product just didn't hold together very well. Acting was just So-So (from William Hurt's German accent, to Donald Sutherland (I pictured that character much younger in the book) seeming very out of place, to Alec Newman's portrayal of Frankenstein (and finally) to Luke Goss's 'Creature' not feeling like a substantial threat. It just didn't work. I applaud the effort to be faithful to the source material, it's just that something was lost in translation. Given a marginally larger budget and probably a more seasoned director, this could have been really great, but this version just sort of hints at that greatness.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Faithful Adaptiation-Classic Like The Novel
barrosjared17 June 2017
Frankenstein the miniseries from 2004 is well performed. The story which is about 200 years old, resonates within this faithful adaptation. It's characters are well performed, the Monster and Victor the most. If you want to see an entertaining, close to the original story, Frankenstein is the one to watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
This should be a must see for everybody
mlwitvliet19 January 2017
I'm (as most people) familiar with Frankenstein because of the 1931 Horror flick Frankenstein and to my shame I must admit I like it. Shame because this movie also shows that Hollywoods arrogance was already there in 1931 by taking someones story and maim it completely for commercial purposes. Because it's a very simple horror entertainment story i never had the urge to read the book.

Then I come across the trailer of this film and I immediately wanted to see the movie, Some people gave this movie very bad remarks. Those are the people that, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the true story of Frankenstein.

200 years after the book is written we haven't learned much. People still like to play god, the makers of the atom bomb for instance, and you can only hope that they have suffered in their lives like Victor Frankenstein did. "we never intended to use them". Why make them then??? Did you people really were that stupid that you don't understand that when you have something like an atom-bomb there will be somebody that would use it? (as they did).

There are also a lot of people in this world who think (like Frankenstein) they have the right to take lives of other human beings just because they are treated bad in their past. There are also a lot of people in this world (the lefties) who think you should understand a creature like Frankenstein, but don't understand that "people" like Frankenstein will kill them with a smile on their face when they feel like it. Therefore I'm glad that in the film is stated, "does a person who takes innocent lives deserve understanding?" on the other hand, do people have the right to misjudge people just because they are different?

These are very good questions and therefore i think this movie should be obligatory on Highschools all over the world and should be discussed afterwards so that also people who don't understand this movie can understand and hopefully are as much impressed with this movie as I was. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Very scary
jacobjohntaylor15 March 2016
This a great movie. It a remake. 6.4 is underrating it. This movie is a must see. It is based on one of the best horror books ever. And it is one of the best horror movies ever. This movie has great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It the story of a scientist who takes part from different dead bodies and puts them together. He brings it to life. This movie is scary then The Exorcist. Frankenstein (1931) is scarier. But still this is very scary. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. 1994 version is better. But still is very good movie. It one of closest versions to the book. This movie is a must see.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Frankenstein 2004
omhn20 April 2010
Frankenstein Review (2004) This movie is about a young man named Victor Frankenstein who lived in Switzerland and went to college in Germany. One of his professors taught him a lot, however the longer he was at college the more interested he became in trying to make human life.

The first part of the movie starts off talking about his family as well as his friends. Than when he gets older it shows him making a person. They call the person that he makes "the Monster." It turns out that his creation turns against him and everyone else in the village because no one accepts him. He hurts a lot of people and Victor does the best he can to put an end to his creatures destruction.

The setting took place in Switzerland and in Germany. I thought that the clothes of the actors fit the time and the setting in which this story took place (late 1700's). I thought that the acting was very good. I was quite impressed with Victor; he played his part very well. I thought that the rest of the acting was good as well.

I thought that the dialogue in this movie was good as well it definitely fit the time period in which they lived. At certain points in this movie I thought that I was actually a part of the conversation that was taking place. The action sequences were so much better than other versions of Frankenstein. I thought that they seemed a lot more realistic as well as more intense than the other movies. At times you could really feel the emotion of the characters in the movie.

I've personally never really been a fan of Frankenstein, however even though I didn't think the story is very good, the acting in this movie kept my attention. If you like the story of Frankenstein this is definitely something that you want to watch at least once.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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