a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…
Be Warned. It's Alive
Based on Mary Shelley's novel, "Frankenstein" tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a promising young doctor who, devastated by the death of his mother during childbirth, becomes obsessed with bringing the dead back to life. His experiments lead to the creation of a monster, which Frankenstein has put together with the remains of corpses. It's not long before Frankenstein regrets his actions.
Overwrought, overlong, and played at the loudest of volumes, Kenneth Branagh's operatic take on "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is admirable in its sheer commitment to its blaring sensibilities. The film boils over with gothic passions and a lack of subtly, but it is, nonetheless, engaging.
Branagh's presentation of Shelley's classic work blends fully-rendered cinematic production design and theatrical style into the gothic tale. The novel's thematic mix of God-playing, life, death, and science are present, flowing from a script that follows the narrative path of that novel and never strays too far from it: Victor Frankenstein makes a monster out of the parts of dead men and pays the price. It is both science fiction and horror.
Branagh and company may…
Ugh. This had so much potential, but the whole thing is just so overdone. Way too melodramatic, overacted beyond belief, and it carries a tone that's all over the place. Now I haven't seen any other adaptations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but this takes many liberties when it comes to the source material. One new plot development involving Helena Bottom Carter's character was intriguing at first, but kind of lost steam immediately afterwards. This, along with many of the notable sequences from the novel, are extremely rushed here, while the non-essential family moments go on for what seems like eons. And most surprising is the fact that Robert De Niro is actually pretty bad as the Monster. Could have been much, much better.
I really wish Francis Ford Coppola had directed this instead of just signing on as the producer. I would have loved to have seen his take on this, especially after just finishing Dracula.
Do you share my madness?
My love for the cinematic Frankenstein begins in the 1930s and seems to have a hard time going past the 1960s with a few comedic exceptions. After learning of director Paul McGuigan being in pre-production of yet another take on the classic tale with James McAvoy in the Victor Frankenstein role and Daniel Radcliffe as Igor it reminded me of that "faithful adaptation" that is 20 years old this year... that I had actually never seen.
Considered to be the most faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's original 1818 novel, it also manages to sneak in quite a few nods to previous films as well. Unfortunately all this doesn't make for a particularly great…
It actually took me a hour after the movie ended to figure out if I liked this movie or not. This Frankenstein movie is unlike any Frankenstein movie I have seen. It is probably the closest movie to Mary Shelly's novel out there....I could be mistaken as their are countless versions of her book.
In this one Kenneth Branagh plays Dr. Frankenstein and Robert DeNiro plays the monster. You get lots of the standard Frankenstein classic moments like...the blind man, the death of a small child, the creation of life scene and fire being the monster's kryptonite. What you do not normally get is the monster questioning Frankenstein on things like....the virtues of good vs evil, does the monster have…
While some of the melodrama and scenery-chewing (most surprisingly, the latter not coming from Robert De Niro) can be a bit too much, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an appropriately gothic and visually lavish take on the Modern Prometheus as well as the most faithful adaptation of the classic sci-fi/horror novel, with excellent production designs, strong direction from Kenneth Branagh, fine performances (even in spite of the overacting), some good character development, lush cinematography, and a fantastic musical score from Patrick Doyle.
I've seen the Universal Monster Movie with Karloff, and that was many years ago. Being a fan of De Niro, I was interested in seeing this.
Said to be much truer to Mary Shelley's novel, this is nothing more than a melodramatic, over the top film. Victor Frankenstein is a man who is obsessed with wanting to conquer death. On the eve of his graduation he tells his lover that when he returns from his studies he will marry her. Of course this all has to do with the fact that Victor's mother has died. Upon meeting Professor Waldman begins to discuss sciences and theories with him, including that of reanimation, but tells Victor to not attempt to do it…
... 'cause everything about this film is great! The acting is great! The costumes are great! The make-up (is that De Niro) is great! The music is PHENOMENAL!! The whole way Branagh imagined his version of Frankenstein is just beautiful. It is how I always wanted it to see. But there's one flaw...
It is to quick. The pace of this film is one of the worst ever and it almost completely destroys the whole story. With a tale like Frankenstein you should take time to fully absorb everything that happens, because there are quite some life-changing (what a pun) moments in Dr. Frankenstein's epic tale. But they rush past you as fast as a musical montage in an eighties…
This is the worst Robert De Niro film I have ever seen
Robert De'Niro surprises and I give the movie credit for being (mostly) faithful to the book for which it was adapted from, but the film is just so... made for TV feeling....
The movie feels and looks cheap. The score sounds amateur.
The film runs at such a frantic fast pace that we are not given a moment's time to reflect on what we are witnessing...
Scares? There aren't any to be had.
Bad? Yes? Horrible? Maybe not.
Interesting Take On The Tale
This is a pretty interesting film version of the story. In a roundabout way, it's similar to the Universal Classics because The Monster or Creature is created by Frankenstein and becomes abandoned and lonely for "someone like him" - a bride - but that's about as far as the similarities go. The Creature himself is more similar in looks to the classic Hammer Horror "The Curse of Frankenstein" with Christopher Lee than any of the Universal Horror Classic 'Monsters' (Karloff, Chaney, Lugosi & Strange).
As far as the story goes Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) has a good take on the tale but not nearly as good as Universal or Hammer Horror films. That's just my opinion. If you do not compare films (film companies) then you have a pretty darn good monster movie here that is worth a watch if you like this sorta film.
Top 300 Movie #285:
A bit melodramatic in spots, but this is one of those movies where that kind of approach actually perfectly captures the madness at the heart of this tale. Robert De Niro's performance as The Creature is actually one of my favorite performances of his and bringing it so much closer to the book that your average adaptation brings in some very wonderful dialogue that came from Mary Shelley's original source material.
Was it worth ruining your relationship with Emma Thompson over dear KBran? I think not.
I mean that being said I only caught the first half hour because then my friend skyped me from Europe so maybe I'm biased...
But yeah, starring Kenneth Branagh's ego ft. Helena Bonham Carter pre Tim Burton
One I seen in the theaters and finally watched again for the first time on bluray and it still holds up.
A fun, campy, over the top mess of a movie.
"Horror is one of the most readily dismissed genres from critics and film buffs, yet is, arguably, the…
I Love 90's Horror! I have already made a Top 10 List for the 1990's, but that seemed radically insufficient…