Customer Reviews

Frankenstein

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Ever since I experienced the mild disappointment of Kenneth Branagh's film "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein", I had dreamed that someone somewhere would finally do a truly faithful film version of the greatest horror story ever told. I think I may have found what I was looking for in this three and a half hour long gothic melodrama. Most of Shelly's story is left completely intact with only some minor changes and additions. One significant addition is Victor's close bond with his teacher Professor Waldman (brilliantly played by William Hurt with a delightful German accent). This friendship is never fully explored in the novel. Another is Victor's ongoing hallucinations brought on by shock and brain fever. The novel mentions nightmares, but not hallucinations. Victor's childhood is explored deeper than it was in the book and presents us with a genesis of his morbid obsessions with life and death. It also fleshes out his relationship with Elizabeth. Another change is Victor and Henry's trip to Ireland, instead they return to Ingolstadt. Lastly, the part in the novel where the creature is shot after trying to save a drowning girl is left out. There are some other minor additions, but nothing significant enough to mention. So what we have here is something much, much closer to Shelly than even Branagh's version from 1993. It contains all of the questions asked in the novel, all of the dynamics of Shelly's vision, and all of the tragedy without being as over-the-top and bombastic as a Hollywood produced film. Now, is it a good movie? I admit I'm not a fan of Hallmark. Their films are far to warm, fuzzy and unrealistically optimistic for me, and I find many of them to be rather revolting. This is why I was amazed when I saw Frankenstein. Hallmark producing a depress-fest like this?! As a film, although it doesn't have the "cinematic element" of theatrical releases, I felt it is a far superior film version of Frankenstein than anything done since 1931. The acting is solid-to superb, the emotional element is there (I defy anyone who thinks they can get away without at least a lump in their throat after seeing this), the sets and costumes are excellent, and we have the best looking Monster since Karloff. Hats off to the makeup designers! By the way, Luke Goss steals the show as the Monster who only desires to love and be loved, but is driven to murder. Another thing they got RIGHT this time is that each time the Monster kills; he feels overwhelming remorse and is often driven to tears. Shelly's original vision of the Monster was a creature that was inhuman outwardly, but within, the epitome of Humanity. The Monster was never supposed to be soulless. He's portrayed by Goss as a noble and highly intelligent (if physically unattractive) Gothic Anti-Hero. Just as he was in the book. He even quotes Milton's Paradise Lost. A far cry from the lumbering, brutish, child-like killer we're used to. This film is highly recommended to anyone even remotely interested in the Frankenstein myth. And if you're like me, a major fan of the original novel, you'll find this movie to be absolutely wonderful. It's a shame that it received virtually no promotion and was limited to being aired on the Hallmark channel. Go get the dvd!

FRANKENSTEIN is a three and a half hour epic that recreates Mary Shelley's classic tale of the dichotomy of science vs humanities in a keenly wrought script by Mark Kruger. For all its length and emphasis on special effects, sets, costumes, flashbacks etc, this film produced by Hallmark for television proves its mettle when viewed non-stop on the recently released DVD.

Director Kevin Connor wisely emphasizes the morality issues in Shelley's novel and does not opt for the usual so-weird-that-it-becomes-comical focus on the manmade monster (a sensitive Luke Goss) of Dr. Frankenstein (Alec Newman). Through a series of flashbacks (the tale opens with on an ice-stranded ship captained by a man (Donald Sutherland) in search of his own scientific truths. Enter Dr. Victor Frankenstein, ill from his pursuit of the monster he created in his German laboratory under the tutelage of Professor Waldman (William Hurt). The film flashbacks to Victor's childhood and the impact of the death of his mother (Julie Delphy) that drives Victor to understand 'death' in hopes of being able to reverse it. We meet his adopted sister Elizabeth (Nicole Levin) who is later to become his love and his wife, and his childhood friend Henry (Dan Stevens) who will follow Victor through the trials of his life.

With tremendous veracity we see Victor's motivation to overcome death in a laboratory that is not eerie but wonderfully life-affirming, a place where he restores life to frogs and dogs killed by accidents. Victor becomes obsessed with his work and eventually creates a 'man' from the body parts of the dead laying in open graves in the paupers' graveyard. Using the electrical current from lightning he brings his creature to life - and from this point on the error of his creation pursues him.

The 'monster' is not the freak usually displayed, but a tender soul, hungry for love, for family, for tenderness. His outward appearance creates the 'bad monster' in the eyes of the public and the monster begins a course of killings, all in response to his need to have his 'father' (Dr Frankenstein) provide a love object/source for him.

Yes, the story and its conclusion are known to everyone. The difference here is the view that man must take responsibility for all his actions and that ignoring the emotional needs of anyone is committing a crime. All of the actors are excellent, the period evocation is elegant, and the special effects are subtly handled. Connor has a hard time making his crowd scenes credible: his cast of extras seems to be gathered from people who have no clue how to act. But given the flaws in a movie too long for one sitting, this film manages to be true to the reasons Mary Shelley wrote this book, a book that is among the most famous ever written. This is a FRANKENSTEIN that cares more about character motivation than being a fright Halloween film.

I just finished watching this 4 hour epic masterpiece and have to say this is the most accurate portrayal of Mary Shelley's novel yet. We have all seen Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee portray the Creature and although these are extremely classic in filmgoers minds eyes (mine included), there has never been an adaptation that has followed the events in the book so closely. When Kenneth Brannaugh originally announced he was filming "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I was very happy that someone was going to film the novel. Well, this turned out to be my biggest movie going disappointment ever. The reality is that I don't think anyone could ever film a worse version than that on such an overblown budget. Hollywood has always had a history of butchering probably the one of the most intellegent horror novel ever written...UNTIL NOW!

I had no expectations for this film due to the fact it is a made for TV movie. Considering it was also a production of the USA network, I had my hesitations. I just decided to watch it by chance only because of the name and was completely won over. From the very first scenes with Donald Sutherland as the captain of the Prometheus when he finds Frankenstein in the arctic to the amazing scenes of the creature's first breath. WOW!! This is incredibly powerful stuff. Not only are the portrayals and sequence of events true to the book but the laboratory equipment (which has always exceded the technology of the times in past movies) is what you would expect without being overdone. In my opinion, the creation scene is one of the most powerful ever filmed. I do NOT diminish the Clive/Karloff version in any way because that is truly the MOST classic but this is what you envision when you read the book. The only element that wasn't really played upon that Mary Shelley explained in great depth in the novel was Frankenstein's involvement in Alchemy. But with the detail to which every other element of the novel has been recreated, this can be overlooked. In the novel, the creation sequence is extremely vague, to say the least. This adaptation gives a very understated yet compelling portrayal.

On to the creature. Again, no disrespect to the classics, but the boxed heads, green complexions, bolts, and overly scarred interpretations are gone. The creature also has a very understated makeup that is fittingly perfect. Mary Shelley describes a being with long, black hair, yellow complexion, and sunken eyes. This is what we get!! Perfect!! Truly beautiful in it's horror. The creature is portrayed with amazing pathos and intelligence. The scene of realization after he is chased from the house by the blind man's son and he looks at his reflection in the water is absolutely brilliant. When he beckons to God in regards to his appearance...I am at a loss for words.

Every portrayal in this adaptation is played perfectly and with great understanding of the novel. I love to watch movies with Donald Sutherland so enough has been said right there. William Hurt as Dr. Waldman is (do I dare say it?) brilliant. Mary Shelley couldn't have asked for a greater homage to her book. Finally, a true to life interpretation of a classic that in all rights should be considered a classic in itself.

I anticipate the release of this to DVD and will buy it the day it comes out. Don't hesitate, every Frankenstein fan should have this in their collection.

I am an English professor and often teach Frankenstein in my classes. I own about 12 versions of the novel on DVD, and this one is the best by far. It's the closest to Shelley's original novel; the few additions made don't detract from the spirit of the novel and don't distort (as Branagh's version does) her themes or characterizations. What I love most about is that the creature is quite young and, while still horrifying, not so monstrous as to make us forget that Victor intended to create a beautiful being (i.e., you can see the potential handsomeness despite his sickly hue and a few visible scars). His youth makes it easier to understand that the creature is initially an infant, despite his stature--one abandoned by his "father" and left to learn from the random persons and experiences he comes across. All this makes it easier to empathize with him and to ask the question: Was it his inate nature or the lack of nurture that made him into a "monster"? My only real quibble is that while Donald Sutherland gives a fine performance, the difference between his and Walton's age and Victor's takes away from the doubling Shelley intended.

OK, a lot of this review sounds pretty academic. Let me say that it's an exciting production of Frankenstein, very enjoyable. My students laughed their way through Branagh's version and definitely thought this was the best one I showed them.

This tale has been current two centuries for a reason: it's damn good. No need for embellishment or special effects. Fidelity to the narrative pays off here: in sticking to the text, the film approaches Shakespearian dimensions.

Worthwhile.

In our opinion the movie was GREAT! The story was filled with suspense at every second. We thought that the film would have been boring because we had already read the book and we would know what was going to happen next. Actually, it wasn't like that at all because the creatures and script writers of the film switched some of the parts with new ones for the reason of letting the people that watch the movie be surprised instead of bored. For example, the movie had great characters, and a great sense of caring. For example, Victor loved Elizabeth and they got married. Also Victor loved all of the people that the monster killed. It also showed a great amount of respect and how you should and shouldn't treat others. I would reccomned the movie "Frankenstein" to be watched by children and adults all over the worid. There was a lot of elaboration and it wasn't boring throughout the whole movie. It was a cliff hanger from start to finish. The movie taught that being alone isn't always a good thing. The monster in the movie was left alone with no one to love, or no one to love him. In the matter of the monter being alone, he killed Frankenstein's loved ones, causing Victor alot of agony and suffering. Victor died sad, due to the terrible monter that shouldn't have ever been created. Overall, everyone should be able to see this movie.

I have never enjoyed a Hallmark movie before, but they completely redeemed themselves with this one! Frankenstein has been my favorite novel since I was 12, I have seen every version that I have been able to get my hands on, and none of them are as good as this one! (Although dont get me wrong, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive did an excellent job in the 1931 version.) This is the way that Mary Shelley intended Frankenstein to be. Luke Goss is absolutely amazing! I would recommend this to anyone who has read the book and subsequently seen the movies and been disappointed (like Kenneth Brannagh's--which wasn't half bad until the ridiculous ending...and the fact that Brannagh himself stared in it when he was way older than Victor Frankenstein should have been.) It is unfortunate that there was not a great deal of advertising for this movie; I just happened onto it while flipping through the channels.

I am a high school English teacher at a Christian school. Having just finished reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in my sophomore class, I wanted to find a film that was as close to the book as possible so that we could discuss the differences between the movie and the book. This movie nailed the creature in the book! The creature is accurately represented in the film as is the internal conflict that Victor has in creating the monster. There are a few scenes in the movie that do not accurately reflect the material in the novel, but they are minor and the movie shifts quickly back to the book's storyline. If you're looking for a fine movie accurately depicting the book this is the one to have. It's a keeper.

Certainly not a monster film.

A drama of one man's attempt to play God, then abandon the one he had forged in order to escape the consequences of his actions. Yet, the living and breathing creature Victor Frankenstein helps bring to life will not allow him to simply forget.

"Man or Monster" was the under-title of the series. One has to wonder who was the man and who was the monster. The one who sought to play god, then abandoned his creation, going as far as deciding to kill him before any such murder had even taken place?

Or is it the one who longed for love and acceptance, and only after this is denied does he seek vengeance on the father who thought so little of him, to help bring him to life as a mere experiment, without realizing he was something more?

Wow. What a great movie. Not only was it the only Frankenstein movie that came close to the book, it was so close I'm hard pressed to find differences. Lots of the dialog was straight from the book. It is at least as good as the book, if not (dare I say it?) better. Great acting, creepy scenes. Best bringing the monster life to scene I've ever seen. It was gruesome & everything it should be, without being gory. I can't wait until Oct 26 so I can buy it. Be aware though, that like the book, it is a bit less of a horror movie than a tragedy. And it's so well done you can't help but feel melancholy at the end. A must have movie!