| Mary Shelley's Frankenstein | | Cast : | Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter | | Director : | Kenneth Branagh | | Studio : | Columbia/Tristar Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Full Screen, Dolby | | Released Date : | November 04, 1994 | | DVD Released Date : | August 31, 2004 | | Language : | Spanish (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | July 30, 2005 | | Summary | "Be Warned. It's Alive." The Classic Gothic Novel Is Now A Major Motion Picture. Kenneth Branagh Does It Again. | Content
 | Having seen several of Kenneth Branagh's movies ("Much Ado About Nothing," "Hamlet," "Othello," "Dead Again," "Henry V"; see my reviews on all of them) and seen several other cast members either in his movies or on their own (Tom Hulce in "Amadeus"; see my review on it), I naturally expected a great film from him and a respectful adaptation of the classic Gothic horror novel by Mary Shelley (see my review on it; as far as I know, this version is the ONLY ONE to stick closely to the original novel), along with great performances from the supporting cast. Read on.
I WAS NOT disapppointed. As always, the dependable Kenneth Branagh delivered the goods: great performance, impeccable direction/producing and flawless screenwriting, for the last of which tasks he would go uncredited. The film started off very well (a prologue taken straight from the original novel) and didn't let up for a minute from there. Eight or nine minutes into the film, sea captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) delivers a famous line from the novel: "I will be hailed as the benefactor of our species." A lot of people have complained about the film being too gory, so let me pose this question to them: Why don't you complain about the OTHER movies that are bloodier, instead of focusing on this one, which is tame, compared to gore-fests like "Kill Bill" (see my review on it), "Hannibal" and others like them? Of course Branagh had to make this film bloody, if he wanted to stick to the main idea of the novel (he informed Francis Ford Coppola's film company, Zoetrope, that he wouldn't do the film at all if they didn't want to stick to the novel, as he wasn't pleased with the treatment that screenwriter Steph Lady had been doing for the movie; Coppola was originally going to direct, but he was so exhausted after making "Bram Stoker's Dracula" that he decided to produce the film and hand the directing reins over to renowned Shakesperean actor Kenneth Branagh, who almost passed on the film fo the reason enumerated above) and other points that the novel just glossed over (i.e. what drove Victor to his furious obsession with death, how did he give life to the Creature, etc.) Several others complained about the liberties taken with the novel and even went so damn far as to nitpick on them, point by point. Let me address this issue in one sentence. The liberties that an uncredited Kenneth Branagh, Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption," co-writer of "The Interpreter") and Steph Lady (Branagh and Darabont incorporated several of his ideas into the film) took with the novel only served to make Frankenstein (Branagh, in a terrific and Shakespearean-style performance) more of a protagonist than a villain, as he is depicted in the novel; QUIT THE DAMN NITPICKING, ALL RIGHT? If you're one who enjoys that, avoid this movie, you'll find a bloody lot to complain about. I never even noticed all the "Indiscretions" that weren't in the book, as I was throughly enjoying the movie. As long as the liberties that were taken with the book enhance the story, as it does here to increase the drama (which is what Branagh was going for, viewing it as a Shakesperean tragedy), it is perfectly all right. The score by Patrick Doyle is uplifting and sad, especially when Elizabeth and Victor consumate their love for each other (no nudity; Branagh doesn't do that, he implies it, and in such a dramatic way, that it is enough of a hint to the viewer as to what is happening on screen without showing it), in the haunting and beautiful piece known as "The Wedding Night." One scene is remeniscent of the first time we see Kenneth Branagh in the following year's "Hamlet," which would again feature a star-studded cast, excellent score and lavish sets (see my review on it). This movie should've been rated PG-13, as there are other movies out there which have unneccessary violence. In this movie, the violence, gore and brief nonsexual nudity (as the Creature emerges from the caldron, covered in amniotic fluid) ARE needed; there are only one or two bloody scenes. The ending goes beyond the original novel, yet doesn't lose its intended impact on the viewer. A "Making-of" documentary would've been nice, as well as commentaries from Kenneth Branagh, Robert "You Talkin' To Me?" DeNiro, Helena-Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast/crew, including Francis Ford "The Godfather" Coppola and other bonus features. I will even go so far as to say this this is the DEFINITIVE version of "Frankenstein." Mrs. Shelley would have been proud. The performances by DeNiro, Ms. Carter, Tom "Amadeus" Hulce, John "Monty Python" Cleese (ditching his funny-man persona and diving into a serious role for once, appearing almost unrecognizable with long hair and a beard), Richard Briers (as the blind old man, who had appeared in "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing"; see my reviews on them), Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins in "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy; also a noted Shakespearean actor and who had appeared as Fluellen in Branagh's "Henry V"; see my review on it) and the rest of the cast were excellent. The final scene, in which the Creature (DeNiro, in a heart-breaking performance) declares, "I am done with man," is emotionally evocative. Great job, everyone. If you're a fan of Kenneth Branagh or anyone else in the cast or just want to see a faithful adaptation of the Gothic horror novel, then this is the movie version for you. Rated PG-13 for some violence. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 10, 2005 | | Summary | Defying God is always a bad idea | Content
| "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is Kenneth Branagh's wild cinimatic version of the oft filmed story. In many respects, it is the most faithful to the original novel; much like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was the truest version of that one (and both films were produced by Francis Ford Coppola). Victor Frankenstein (played by director Branagh) is a man oddsesed with defeating death, so he creates a man from pieces of corpses he manages to steal along the way. But in the end he finds the past coming back to haunt him as the monster comes after him and his family. Kenneth Branagh's Victor Frankenstein is sort of the middle ground between Universal's Colin Clive's doctor and Hammer's Peter Cushing's amoral sociopath. He is dangerously obsessed with defying God, but he is doing it for the ligitimate good of man; or more specificly his dead mother and later his mentor and professor (John Cleese in a rather serious cameo). Then we have Robert De Niro's Monster. Here he plays, well, Robert De Niro style psycho; like "Taxi Driver's" Travis Bickle or "Cape Fear's" Max Cady. He dosn't add a lot new to the role. Helan Bohnam Carter is alright; basiclly eye candy. But the story is rich and intriging all the way through, and there is a lot of really cool scenery. As a period piece it is well done. I really liked this version, the most faithful of all previous versions. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 15, 2005 | | Summary | It is a tale that is still poignant to this day. | Content
| What can I say, I just liked this movie, so much so that I bought the DVD and have watched it at least a half of a dozen times. I read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein just a year ago and was totally surprised. Having grown up watching the Boris Karloff edition, I was not ready for what I read- it was a story about man and science, God and man, and the havoc that that man can bring upon himself when he puts himself in the place of God. But hey, this is not a review of the book, but of the movie.
Kenneth Branagh did a pretty good job in bringing this movie to the big screen. Sure, he cannot capture all the totality of the book, a feat movies rarely do, but he did capture the essence of Shelly's morality tale. The scene in the ice cave makes the point. The monster finally comes face to face with his creator (a creator who, by the way, abandoned his creation) and asks the questions: What of my soul, do I have one or was that a part you left out? Who are these people of whom I am comprised? Good people? Bad people?
In a post-modern politically correct world, it would have been tempting, and very easy for Branagh to leave this element of Shelly's tale out. Yes, this film may have been over the top a time or two. Yes, it may have been over dramatic. But it does what few films do, it captured the spirit of the author's intent, namely, that man is not God, and when he takes to himself the prerogatives of God, he brings havoc upon himself, his loved ones and society in general. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 08, 2005 | | Summary | 0 STARS: Booooooooooring!!! | Content
| I simply thought this "Frankenstein" movie was boring. Robert DeNiro is a great actor, but this movie failed to keep my interest. I would not recommend this flick to horror movie fans. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 02, 2005 | | Summary | De Niro: Great Actor | Content
| This movie is better than Bram Stoker's Dracula, but not much. The difference could be down to De Niro, who turns in another great performance, and gives the Monster more depth than I could have imagined. Although Karloff was good in his day, too. The rest of the action was almost as much of a muddle as the Dracula film. Scenes jumped wildly from place to place and time to time. How many years did the action cover without the characters aging, and where on the globe were they at any point in time, and what season of the year was it? Search me. Branagh has a lot of energy, which no doubt has taken him to where he is, and he is a reasonable specimen, physically; but he is not a good actor, he does not speak his lines well, and he directs as though he hasn't got a strong enough grip of the plot. This goes for his Shakespeares, which are just as ordinary. Gothic is a peculiar genre. Perhaps it is well suited to the thespian arts of the present age: a lot of weird atmosphere, not much logic, sense, meaning or realism; vaguely held together by some shallow undertow, such as Man is playing God by creating Monsters who will Destroy Him. Now what we want is Tarantino directing Beckford's Vathek, or Lynch re-writing Lewis's The Monk; or what about the Coens doing Walpole's The Castle of Otranto? |
|
|
|
|
