Frankenstein (2004) User Reviews

Finally, the book comes to the screen

[rooprect · 7/10 · 16 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.

What a visual pleasure

[puckclaes · 7/10 · 23 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.

Although Unnecessary, I Liked This Dramatic Adaptation of this Classic Novel

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 22 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"

The best version of the movie so far...

[mrmnlpp2 · 21 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.

I liked it

[haladay · 7/10 · 17 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.

The most faithful version of Mary Shelley's classic gothic horror novel

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 15 December 2019]

A Hallmark production, "Frankenstein" (2004) is the most literary faithful filmic version of the oft-done tragedy. Luke Goss looks more like the novel's depiction of the creature (with long black hair and white teeth) than Boris Karloff in the Universal classics or Robert De Niro in the 1994 version, but he's also too handsome in a dark gothic way, resembling Type O Negative's Peter Steele. The creature in the 1994 version didn't have hair and was a more gruesome depiction, which fits Victor's description of the creature in the book as "hideous" (then, again, Victor was extremely biased against his creation).

While this rendition and the 1994 one are the most faithful to Shelley's book, they each omit parts and change certain things. For instance, both omit Victor's traveling to Scotland and, later, Ireland, which was a good call. Actually, I think both versions improve the story in different ways. When Victor and the creature finally meet and have a discussion in the high country, this one has them meet at a ruined castle, which is an excellent deviation. The 1994 version has them talk at a remote glacial dwelling, which is closer to what occurs in the novel.

My favorite part is when the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family, unbeknownst to them. It helps the viewer get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight. In the book and the 1994 version all sympathy is pretty much lost eventually while this rendition paints the creature more sympathetically. The locket sequence is lame though, but that was a weak point of the novel as well.

Alec Newman is intense and brooding as Victor Frankenstein and I could relate to his work obsessions carried out in his nightgown (or whatever). Any problems with the flick are due to translating a convoluted 19th century gothic horror classic to modern cinema.

With almost an hour more to play with compared to the 1994 version, this one has the luxury of taking its time and is the better for it IMHO. The 1994 movie, by contrast, is overly manic and melodramatic because it tried to cram too much into two hours.

The film runs 2 hours, 56 minutes, and was shot in Slovakia and Norway.

GRADE: B+

The most faithful adaptation of the novel I've seen.

[watrousjames · 7/10 · 29 June 2021]

For the most part I enjoyed this, mostly, faithful adaptation of the novel. It's a not masterpiece by any means, but it's a hansom production. The acting, for the most part, is good by Alec Newman as the Victor Frankenstein and Luke Goss as the creature. Actually Goss gives a really good performance, acutally his portrayal of the creature is probably the most sympathetic I've seen. William Hurt, Donald Sutherland, and Julie Delpy in supporting roles don't hurt the film by any means. One flaw is that the creature wasn't scary looking. He looked like someone with a skin deformity but not someone I would find scary. I thought the film could be more suspenseful than it is. At least we now have version that is at least 90% faithful to the novel, unlike most, which are usually about 5% faithful, even Kenneth Branagh's version took a lot of liberties.

getting even with Dad....

[ccmiller1492 · 5/10 · 4 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?

Excellent adaptation

[Cheerful_Dragon · 10/10 · 5 September 2005]

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.

Good-looking but anaemic

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 27 March 2015]

FRANKENSTEIN is a TV miniseries retelling of the Mary Shelley novel, made by Hallmark Entertainment. I do enjoy these Hallmark shows, which are invariably well-cast and good-lucking; certainly the production values in this one are sumptuous indeed, especially considering it was made for TV. The Arctic locations look fantastic, and the European location work really adds to the atmosphere of the piece.

In scope and tone, this is closely aligned to Branagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, although it's not as good as that movie. For a start, the cast is less interesting, although there are exceptions. I can't see why Donald Sutherland, for instance, is wasted in the thankless role of the ship's captain, or why Luke Goss makes so little an impact as the Creature. William Hurt and Julie Delpy are similarly underutilised in relatively minor roles, while a hell of a lot is put on the shoulders of Alec Newman, playing Frankenstein. Newman is okay, but hardly great; surely this part cries out for a well-established talent.

This miniseries boasts some decent cinematography, but it's an entirely bloodless affair, and somehow the drama is never as exciting as it should be. It doesn't help that the Creature looks like a tired goth, or maybe Lord Byron after a particularly heavy night on the booze. FRANKENSTEIN is acceptable and deserves kudos for capturing the right "feel" of the novel, but I'd rather watch the Branagh adaptation again than this one.

Faithful to the original. but very stupid.

[Lollipop4598 · 1/10 · 8 August 2006]

While it is true that this film is a lot like the book, it just does not make cinematic sense( or any other sort of sense either. It is painful to watch. The creature is just not that ugly. ve seen people look worse after a weekend bender. WHY exactly does everyone fear him as though he was shedding his skin? And the genius Viktor is so totally stupid that he just can't help pissing off the murderous creature and then putting his loved ones conveniently in its path and running off somewhere so that it can have an easy uninterrupted go of it. The creature isn't that convincing. Its only real argument is that it had to kill people no matter how harmless because he was angry at other people. It never explains just why it never harmed anyone that actually mocked it, just people that did absolutely nothing to it whatsoever. The most silly part is where Viktor runs after a beggar(even though the beggar is half of the creatures size and obviously human)can conveniently walk through a door and kill her without breaking a sweat. It is also inexplicable why Viktor could simply make sure that the creatures mate was unable to reproduce instead of torching her in front of the monster. Its rather predictable what would happen next. Viktor even conveniently screams NOOOOOOOOOO instead of shooting at it so that it could run away and seek vengeance. Please do not watch without a barf bag handy.

Hallmark Frankenstein 2004 - One Great Film

[swede05903 · 10/10 · 4 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.

A classic tale of undying love with chills, thrills and colorful scenes.

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 26 March 2023]

Thrilling and exciting retelling based on Mary Shelley classic novel . In 1794, in the Arctic Sea, Captain Robert Walton (Donald Sutherland) is a man obsessed to reach the North Pole, pushing his crew to exhaustion. When his ship hits an iceberg, it is stranded in the ice. Out of the blue, Captain Walton and his men overhear a dreadful cry and they see a sick stranger coming to the ship. He introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein (Alec Newman) and he tells the Captain the story of his life since he was a little boy . Victor Frankenstein in love for his half-sister goes University where learns lessons from illustrious professor (William Hurt) . He decides to drop out and to continue his studies alone . Then Frankenstein attempting to create an artificial monster of his own . But he's creating a man made being but inadvertently giving him a criminal instinct . The bloodthirsty monster asks to Victor trying to alive a recently executed for give him a lover but Victor rejects him and the monster flees . When the brilliant but unorthodox scientist Dr. Victor Frankenstein rejects the artificial man that he has created, the Creature (Luke Goss) gets away and swears vengeance. The monster begins a killing spree , terrorizing the countryside and everything gets worse .The prowl goes on , continuing his revenge against Frankenstein and back again , until the end in the freezing Arctic where they meet a captain of a galleon

A TV version that deserves to be appreciated , this is a stylish , brilliant and faithful adaptation of the immortal , durable novel, sticking close to the original story . It's a well designed recounting of Mary Shelley's horror tale . A luxurious and colorful adaptation in the wake of Kenneth Brannagh's Frankenstein (1994) , this film was nominated for ten Oscars or Academy Awards , but it achieved none of them . Well based on Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel, this TV miniseries tells the story of Dr. Victor von Frankenstein, a promising young doctor who becomes obsessed with bringing the dead back to life , then his experiments lead to the creation of a monster, which Frankenstein has put together with the remains of corpses , but it's not long before Frankenstein regrets his actions when he's coerced by the evil monster into creating a mate for him . Spooky images creates impact of numerous key sequences as at the monster creation in which Frankenstein creates a simple creature from various body parts ; then he subsequently turns into a killer monster when Dr. Frankenstein rejects him . This is a good entry of the very adapted yarn , it has several ghoulish scenes , alongside with some touches of romance . Although creaky at times , but it's still breathtaking for its impressive images . Terrific acting by Alec Newman and Luke Goss in his portrayal of the creator and the monster , the latter with a sinister and weird performance . It's an entertaining movie if you catch it in the right frame in the mind . Spectacular and glamorous shots by cameraman Alan Caso make this picture a real treat . Sensitive and evocative musical score Roger Bellon . Here director Kevin Connor gives some very Baroque images and guiding us through the tale of Frankenstein's quest for knowledge and a strong confrontation between the astonishing monster and his creator . This ¨Frankenstein¨ (2004) is one of the multiple versions of the vintage tale , the best ones are the Universal's cycle , starting with ¨James Whale's Frankenstein¨a nd going on sequels such as House of Frankestein¨, ¨son of Frankestein¨, ¨Frankestein meet the wolf man¨ and ¨ The Zingara and the monsters¨

The motion picture was well and competently directed by Kevin Connor .who has a long and prestigious career . Sir Richard Attenborough gave him his break to edit his first directorial film "Oh! What A Lovely War." Connor's directing break came from Amicus Films producer, Milton Subotsky, a horror film - "Tales from Beyond the Grave", that lead to a series of Edgar Rice Burroughs fantasy/adventure films made in similar style , the agreeable movies : ¨The land that time forgot (1975)¨, ¨All the Earth's core (1976)¨, ¨The people that time forgot (1977)¨ and ¨Warlord of Atlantis¨ (1978) . Connor moved to Los Angeles 1980, directed "Motel Hell" and 'Sunset Grill'. He found himself drawn to high-profile international mini-series, "Master of The Game", "North & South Book 2", "Great Expectations", "The Old CuriosityShop", "Iran, 444 Days ", "Frankenstein", "Blackbeard" and most recently "Marco Polo". Connor has directed some 100 + Film and Television projects , continuing engaged in producing and directing feature films. Rating : 6.5/10 .Highly recommended , despite being an unknown rendition.

Nothng New in this Remake

[jbdean · 5/10 · 26 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.

beautiful version

[Kirpianuscus · 10 March 2023]

A fair, honest version of a great, beautiful, in profound sense, novel. Well crafted, correct scene by scene, offering the story and not reduced to thrill, reminding the richness of the masterpiece of mary Shelley , I admitt, it is just delightful.

One of motives - Luke Goss, offering a touching, seductive, sweet - bitter portrait of Creature . The second - Alec Newman as a realistic dr. Frankenstein.

And, not the last, Donald Sutherland and William Hurt as the good pillars of the tent of story.

It is a version of rediscoveries of old details .

Delightful, seductive, soft , poetic.

A beautiful gift for the readers of book .

Decent version.

[nigelmacdonald-97173 · 6/10 · 29 June 2020]

Enjoyed this, although with a few reservations. Luke Goss was a strange choice to play the creature. He actually did a good job of making him sympathetic, but he just didn't have the physical presence to be at all menacing. Also, the reanimation of the dog was laughable. It was very watchable though and had excellent production values and the German scenery is beautiful.

Close but no cigar

[meatcamp · 6/10 · 19 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.

Frankenstein 2004

[omhn · 6/10 · 20 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.

Utterly bland and lifeless miniseries

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 2/10 · 29 March 2016]

Rescued out in the middle of a blizzard, a scientist recounts for the crew of his saviours how his past experiments on instilling life to the dead resulted in the creation of a being made from dead body parts hounded him and his family and forcing him to stop it.

Overall this one was quite the troublesome and incredibly problematic mini-series that isn't all that enjoyable. The biggest problem here is the fact of it being so obviously and utterly intent on following the original novel, which in turn results in a pace that it just mind-numbingly bland and flat-out boring. Continuously spouting off completely banal methods for scientific processes and bland religious debates that end before they start are featured so prominently in the first half leaves this one will such a dull, lagging pace that it stumbles over itself before even starting by getting a pace so bland and impossible to rile up any kind of interest here that regardless of how well it sets up the ill- mannered nature of his obsession the lack of interest is such that it doesn't really offer much of a chance to get going until he brings the creature to life so late in the first half. This here is mainly due to how closely this one manages to follow the storyline of the book and getting everything set-up so intently that there's almost no horror at all in this one, even during the second half when the creature escapes out into the wild, and as those are all about him as the sympathetic force in an unknown landscape there's little about it that generates any kind of fear or suspense at his actions with it spending the majority of the time doing little of any interest.with this one so fascinated with the bland story lines about his obsession and the search throughout the woods. While this indeed holds back the first half with some overly-long scenes that just go nowhere, the second half does manage to go for a few more enjoyable bits of action namely from his confrontation at the church ruins and the confrontation at his cabin in the woods. Even beyond these points, there's still a lot wrong with the second half that's even more egregious than the first, with the sympathetic wailing of the monster inspiring derision more than any kind of actual fear, the consequences of his actions against the creature unleashing nothing but shallow melodrama and once against filled with an incredibly long and bland section which doesn't have any interest in anything with it not feeling at all like a horror film for much of this section. With an underwhelming and completely uninspiring finale also making this quite a downbeat effort, this overall isn't all that impressive a miniseries.

Rated Unrated/R: Violence, some Language, strong violence against animals and intense themes of death.

Faithful adaptation

[montague-4 · 10/10 · 23 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.

Not the best....but as Mary Shellen wrote!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 23 December 2018]

After so many Frankenstein's movies this one featured as mini-series due to follow the Mary Shellen's book was she wrote, so it demand an effort by the audience to wait all things comes alive, nonetheless the picture didn't have a high budge to encrease this complete storyline, as results are fully satisfactory, a minor mistake is about the leading character Victor played by alec Newman who don't filled properly the role, too young with baby face, spoiled according most stringent viewers, otherwise certainly would be a better product and said that the main fact that really counts is about this motion picture be faithful copy of the Mary Shellen's masterpiece novel, it is a valuable things to share quite hard to find nowadays!!

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.25

Dull storytelling.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 8 June 2005]

This movie is one fine example of dull storytelling alright. The pace is too slow, the character development is missing and all of the events are told uninteresting. But what else could you expect from a director who mostly works on TV-series and made for TV-movies, like this one.

The movie tells the classic story of the Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein. It might be a faithfully adaptation but it certainly isn't a very good one.

The movie is set in some kind of weird English costume drama environment. OK the result are some scene's with some impressive scenery but it doesn't really work well for the atmosphere of the story and it kills all the tension. The story never gets exciting or tense, due to the low pace, standard cinematography and weak editing. The characters are poorly development and I couldn't care more or less about them.

The fine actors don't have an awful lot to do, with the weak script and directing. A bit of a waste of a great cast. And Luke Goss basically plays his "Blade II" role all over again, including screaming the lines; "Father, father!". His portrayal of the Frankenstein monster was not really convincing, interesting or memorable.

Not a complete disaster to watch but most certainly not an interesting or recommendable one. This movie adds nothing new compared to previously made Frankenstein versions.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

excellent--better than Branagh's version

[edgoodwyn · 8/10 · 14 December 2004]

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.

Amazon lied! 2020? Series? 2004!

[adam-mulley-614-863785 · 7/10 · 5 July 2020]

Why is amazon showing this as a 2020 year of creation, I wonder how many other series they have changed the real year!

Apart from that it is a great series!

Talk about wretched excess

[rikkirat · 1/10 · 14 January 2008]

My daughter brought home the DVD of this mess the other night for a school assignment. She asked if I could watch with her to help with the assignment. What started out with so much promise (Donald Sutherland) just blathered away into a Jane Austinique exercise in excess. Other than Sutherland and Hurt, the cast was kind of weak, the adaptation of what is supposed to be a classic horror novel was made to look more like a spoof of Mel Brook's "Young Frankenstein". Hey its a spoof of a spoof. While I do understand that first it's a "Hallmark" (as in greeting cards) Production, so right there schmaltz and rubbish and that it was also a "Mini-Series", it seemed as though the producers were looking only to fill time and in a feature package... (DVD) meant for one complete viewing... it came across so God awfully long and boring. Almost as draining as watching a "Pirates of the Caribbean" episode. I started cheering for the monster to kill off everyone so that the stupid film would end already. If you have insomnia, and need some help sleeping - please watch this. If, however, you have better things to do with your 3 some hours, skip this. Blechh!