Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

In 1794, in the Arctic Sea, Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) is a man obsessed to reach the North Pole, pushing his crew to the exhaustion. When his ship hits an iceberg, she is stranded in the ice. Out of the blue, Captain Walton and his men overhear a dreadful cry and they see a stranger coming to the ship. He introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) and he tells to the captain the story of his life since he was a little boy in Geneva. Victor is a brilliant student and in love with his stepsister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), an orphan that was raised by his father Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm). In 1793, Victor moves to Ingolstadt to join the university and he promises to get married to Elizabeth. In the school, Victor befriends Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce) that becomes his best friend. Victor gets close to Professor Waldman (John Cleese) and decides to create life to cheat death, but Waldman advises him that he should not try this experiment since the result would be an abomination. When Waldman dies, Victor steals his notes and tries to create life. He succeeds and gives life to a strong Creature (Robert De Niro), composed of parts of deceased persons. However he realizes that his experiment is a mistake and he abandons The Creature expecting that it could die alone. however The Creature survives and learns how to read and write, but he is a monster rejected by the society and by his own creator. The Creature decides to revenge from Victor killing everyone that he loves. "Frankenstein" is an underrated version of the classic story. Directed by Kenneth Branagh, the dramatic story was not well accepted by the professional critics and by many viewers. I saw this movie in 1995 and I have just saw it again on DVD, and it is a great movie that has not aged. Unfortunately I have never read the novel by Mary Shelley to compare with this version that "is considered the most faithful film adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein de Mary Shelley" ("Mary Shelley's Frankenstein")

Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont (who later disowned this film) and ambitiously directed by Kenneth Branagh, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a likable film which succeeds mostly in a refreshingly old-fashioned, Hammeresque vein. (I think Christopher Lee hated this movie and equally class-dripping Bram Stoker's Dracula because he felt that they were competing in the same area.) There's the classic monsters (Robert DeNiro!), the period sets, the lovely heroines in the lovely period costumes, the beautiful and suitably turbulent score... Certainly not a perfect film, but as a classy, gorgeous monster movie, it is a woefully underrated one.

I rarely write online reviews, but after reading most of the comments here my fingers couldn't type fast enough. Clearly, the majority of reviewers here saw a different film than the one I did. A masterpiece? Artful? Brilliant? Either that, or they just have poor taste in films. I still have no interest in really reviewing this film, but let me clear up a few erroneous statements from previous reviews: 1) Please don't trash James Whale's 1931 film unless you've actually SEEN it — all of it, because it's a far superior film to this, bolts and all. Whale may have changed the story quite a bit, but he captured the spirit of the novel and created one of the greatest cinematic icons of all time. (And Boris Karloff played the monster, not Lon Chaney). 2) Although this film is truer to the original novel, it is not faithful and makes considerable changes that alter the overall intent of the story. There is no love triangle in the book, Victor Frankenstein is a medical student of about 18-19 years of age (Branagh is well past the sell-by date for that), and he creates the monster entirely by accident. (No drama whatsoever in the book - he wakes up with the creature hovering near his bed. No electricity, no solar panels as in "The True Story", no amniotic fluid as in this film). 3) De Niro is laughable as the creature. He's completely out of his element and hopelessly miscast. As for make-up, Karloff is closer to original story (minus the bolts). In the novel the creature has weepy yellow eyes, skin like a cadaver, and is nine feet tall. Karloff's make-up was green because when filmed under proper lighting (on B&W film) green make-up looks deadly pale, almost pure white, not because the monster in that film was supposed to be green. Again, it's B&W folks! This story will always present challenges for a filmmaker because it's not really horrific as a story by our standards, or by the standards of the 1930s for that matter, hence the bolts. It's was a novel of the Romantic Era, and the very premise was frightening in and of itself. The real core of the novel is the on-going philosophical debate between young Victor, and his bastard child - the creature. Yes, it's a novel about creating life and playing God, but underneath that is a novel about both adolescent sexuality — Young Victor, alone in his attic, fooling around with nature — and also the consequences of creating a life and then not taking responsibility for it. Branagh's film is too caught up in hammy acting and nauseating camera moves to ever really get there. Yes, the debates are there, but the soul isn't. It's a vaudeville sideshow masquerading as art. For those with only a passing knowledge of the book, it may seem truer, but Whale's 1931 film is actually much closer to the novel's heart in its depiction of "the other", the outcast, the bastard than this ever comes close to.

DeNiro playing Frankenstein's monster was great idea, and the performance feels true to the character in the book. Sadly it comes off as if he were cut out from another film and pasted into this farce. Seeing it in the theater back in 1994, I was embarrassed for everyone involved except for Branagh, who can share the blame with the producers in making this thing. Grown adults were pointing at the screen and laughing, and not just when John Cleese showed up. His scene was the first unintentionally funny one - Cleese's dour character was straight out of about twenty Python sketches. But the "birth" scene, dripping not just with melted jello but with shallow, pointless undercurrents of mother and child and homo-eroticism, was made more ridiculous with comically timed editing. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. You've got to wonder what people are thinking sometimes when making a horror film - did Branagh, or whoever had final cut of this thing, get chills up their spine at any point? Could they feel anything other than blind, empty sensation? "Yeah! That does something!" Yeah, it makes the movie really suck. This movie is a lot of things, mostly a really good lesson in really bad film-making, but it is not scary, nor does it carry any of the message or subtext of Shelly's book. One would like to think that Branagh approached this as an assignment with a big paycheck, which could cut him off from some of the blame, but from his blustery, overstuffed interviews at the time, he took it, and himself, very, very, very, very seriously, and I'm sure he thought he was adding something profound to the great cannon of the Frankenstein legend. What a pompous fraud.

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!

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.

Well as awful movies go, and hilariously so, this miscast over-produced silliness is a million carrot rank winner. Under the section titled "GOOFS" in the IMDb should be link back to this film. I just roared with laughter at De Niro as Frankenstein's monster. Never ever have I seen any actor reduce himself to such inappropriate astonishing and really really funny foolishness for a paycheck. I said it before (about Cape Fear and just about everything else he appeared in from We're No Angels onward) so I will say it again with this mess: how many bad films can this guy make? To see De Niro trussed and Freddie Kruger-ed with plasticine scars and all mumble-mouthed grunting 'Have you ever considered the consequences of your actions... (grerble spittle slurp)" is so funny I nearly fell from the seat. Huntz Hall from the Bowery Boys would have mugged less. Just because Coppola's Dracula made money the usual accountant minds decided we could have a new Frankenstein. I would have preferred a re release of YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN...although it is not as hilarious as this film. The sheer stupidity of the farm snow scenes where 'thamonsta' sleeps in the hay and 'educates himself' (for weeks on end apparently) by reading the Doctor's stolen detailed scientific diary on anatomy, whilst peeking through the cottage wall...and .. checking out his own stitches and scars and sewn together all male hairy lumpy pimply nooks and crannies beneath his colour co-ordinated designer rags from the prop dept...and... later quietly picking a field of frozen turnips (!!).......we are talking about some Euro bumpkin family who do not realise for months there is a genius monster sleeping on their doorstep reading science books (!!) but like a fairy clodhopper invisibly does farm work for them (like elves that clean shoes)...oh it is all so ridiculous. This film is 'up there' with WHITE MISCHIEF and LOOKING FOR RICHARD and PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE for genuine audience participation as a late-show 'shout at the screen' comedy night. Hilarious! What about the slimy afterbirth waltz performed by De Niro and Branagh, channelling Fabio! Oh God! You have to see it! and.....Don't even get me started on WOLF with Jack Nicholson grinning (at the thought of $20million) as a ...werewolf! You'll moon at the screen yourself.

This was just the biggest pile of s**t i have ever seen and i'm serious. Kenneth Brannagh was frankly embarrassing - please God someone stop letting him direct, produce and act in his films because no one can tell him how awful they are. John Cleese's rabbit teeth were hilarious but by far the two most hilarious parts of the film were the look on Brannagh's face when the monster tells him to meet him up on the ice in a few days (he's thinking why not do it now????) and also the scene where Brannagh attempts to save the guy who taught him in the operating room (the camera work is absolutely classic!). All in all i would encourage you to watch this film but only as a comedy - if you do you will laugh for ages! Oh yes and also check out Brannagh's Hamlet - the guy slaughters every film he touches.

Wow, this film is so inaccurate on so many levels. I read the book in 12th grade, and I can't say I liked the story, but that is not my beef with this movie. Why call it MARY SHELLY'S Frankenstein if its not based on her novel? The inclusion of the author's name implies more accuracy, not less. Okay, why is Frankenstein dancing on the mountains with his half-sister and a lightening pole? He was a medical student because of his mothers death, not a random science enthusiast. His mother also died from illness, not childbirth. Frankenstein's friend Henry was from his hometown, not his school. And why did Kenneth Branagh feel the need to slick himself up in goo for the monster-making scene? Also, there was no need for the sex scene, unless it was just to "spice up" the movie, as Frankenstein and Elizabeth never had a chance to consummate their marriage. And what was with the whole trial-gone-awry!?? It was supposed to be an unfair trail, not a mob-gone-mad and throwing the girl off a cliff. Why was the monster going to secret meetings in ice caves? But the MOST ridiculous part was when Frankenstein tried to regenerate Elizabeth. She's DEAD and should stay that way! Why could he not make the one girl with the perfectly fine body come to life, but magically when he hacks off her head and stick's on his lovers, she sparks to life. And was it necessary to shave half her head in the process? The longer this movie went on, the more i just wanted to laugh. It went so far off base, it shouldn't have even been called Frankenstein, let alone dared to include the author's name as if she'd given personal approval. Unless of course, he knew it was so far removed, people wouldn't recognize and confuse it with Bob Smith's Frankenstein.

When Cinemafantastique interviewed Kenneth Branagh on his recently-released version of Frankenstein, the writer asked Branagh to describe his viewpoint, his thematic slant on the story. Quite a natural question for a film maker to be asked, as the notions of theme and point of view are not optional, they are mandatory. A director must decide beforehand on the ideas he wishes to set forth, and craft the means to set them forth clearly. When dealing with a classic, oft-filmed work, he must choose a new slant, and exploit themes that have not been emphasized before (at least, in quite that way), if his work is to be at all original. Branagh's breezy response was something on the order of, "I didn't really have a theme in mind, I just wanted to tell a good story." This is precisely why Branagh's version fails: is an unanchored, misguided mess. Herewith is a barely coherent hash of styles, a series of boneheaded choices (a snotty Helena B. Carter as the "liberated" Elizabeth Frankenstein), a tangle of hanging threads -- beautiful clothes with no one in them; beautiful sets that form a backdrop to utter nonsense. And it is dreadfully miscast. Branagh's ego trip as Dr. Frankenstein aside, the worst performance of all is that of Robert DiNiro as his creature. In this role, DiNiro proves that Pauline Kael was right all along. For years, Ms. Kael kept telling us that this mediocre talent was considered a great actor just because everyone said he was. In other words, he had been in the right place at the right time, and had stumbled into his undeserved reputation by pure chance. (Check out the way he sleeps through his role in Casino.) The spectacle of Frankenstein's creature mumbling in that repellent, thick New Yorkese is really one of the sorriest moments in all of filmdom -- there is simply no excuse for such a thing. Did anyone bother to tell him the story is set in Switzerland? I saw this movie in New York, at an East Side theater, and the audience was giggling nervously every time DiNiro opened his mouth. Why nervously? Because they "know" DiNiro is a "great" actor... Because they were embarrassed, pure and simple. And they should have been. Branagh's desire to "tell a good story," while arrogantly disregarding the most basic elements of storytelling, quite naturally produced the opposite effect. In short, it produced an embarrassment.