Customer Reviews

Frankenstein

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I had to read this story for my Senior English Class. Like any other high school student the first question on my classes mind was "Can't we just watch the video?" The teacher responded that there was no version out that was really truthful to the book (and let's face she's right, most are just remakes on Boris Karloff's version, which is pretty good too).

It was a surprise then to see this movie. While scanning the horror section at Sigma Video (PLUG) I found this tape, just because one of the few movies in that section I hadn't seen. I expect the usual Igor, madman's brian, the usual formula. So I was happy to see the first scene took someone's complaints seriously and actually involved the story of Walton and his crew (however minimally)

And story-line is just great from there. They faithfullness to the original story is a big relief; instead of Victor the genius madmen and his retarded monster that shares his name, we see the truth: that Victor is an idiotic jerk (which actually makes him kinda likeable, the one in the book was an idiotic irresponsible egotistical ostrich-headed jerk) who somehow managed to become a doctor and scientist. and that the monster (I mean Creature) ROCKS. That it was in a horror section seems unusal to me, if only becuase there's none of the blood and guts and gore and all that other good overdone stuff that I've come associate with horror. But I'm not complaining, somehow lack of gore just makes this movie that much better, don't ask me why.

Even things they added aren't that unbelieveable, that Creature was made as a sort of Victor clone was pretty cool, that everyone knows about Creature makes the=ings sooo much easier, until Elizabeth offers herself to be cloned as the Creature's mate. And not-so li'l William provided some good comic relief (Victor propses to Elizabeth, she accepts, and he has nightmares ever since; William : I hope I never fall in love, I don't wanna get sick and have nightmares.)Hmmm....that's funny in the film than in writing oh well. And then there's that scene with De Lacey and Creature was pretty sweet too a kinda lull in the storm thing. So Mrs. M. and all you other teachers out there..if yer kids bug you to "just let us watch the movie" let them watch this.

I remember seeing this when it was first broadcast on TNT in 1993. I recently rented it and remembered how good it was all over again. My favorite film version of Frankenstein is the 1931 version with Boris Karloff. Of the modern versions, I like the Kenneth Branaugh (1994) version and this one. This version is more faithful to the Mary Shelley novel than most other versions. Randy Quaid was magnificent as the monster, and in my opinion did a better job than Robert De Niro in the 1994 version. This film shows what a serious and gifted actor Quaid can be. The major difference from the novel is the creation of the creature. Mary Shelley never actually said that electricity brought the creature to life but she did say that the creature was stitched together from corpses. In this film, Frankenstein constructs a tank filled with a liquid that is made up of the elements of life. He uses this as a sort of cloning machine to make a stronger, wiser, and better version of himself. Electricity makes it work. Something goes wrong during the creation. The creature is strong, but he wasn't exactly formed all the way, thus giving him a hideous appearance. The creators of this film touch upon a concept that was fashionable to put into Frankenstein stage plays in the late 1800s / early 1900s. Frankenstein and the monster are versions of the same character, like Jekyll & Hyde. Since the monster is a clone of Frankenstein, they feel each others feelings and pains. They are the yin and yang of each other. When the monster is shot with a gun, Frankenstein feels the pain of the shot and a strange bruise appears on his chest. I liked how they touched on this concept. There are a few other differences from the novel as well, but no more than there are in the Branaugh version. One of the major differneces in that version is that Frankenstein actually does make a bride for the creature (an event that doesn't happen in the novel.) I think that if the creators of both films collaborated together, then they could have made one hell of a Frankenstein film. This is a must-own for any fan of "Frankenstein."

This movie does a pretty good job at following the themes and ideas of the novel, but it seriously strays from the novel. As a teacher, I am constantly looking for video forms of the novels we read in my classes. I read a review that said that this version followed the novel very well. I was disapointed when I saw how much this movie actually strayed from the plot of the novel. The relationship between the creation and Frankenstein is incorrect, major events are wrong, sometimes the order of events is wrong. This movie can be used for educational purposes, but it comes nowhere near replacing the novel.

However, if you are looking for a fun and new twist to the story, this is the movie for you. It was very entertaining, and I enjoyed watching it.

If you're fond of Mary Shelley's original novel, you'll appreciate this thoughtful made-for-cable rendition, which follows the original more faithfully and seriously than the Karloff version. It tells the entire story laid out in the novel, which was split (and generously embellished) into "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" to create Boris Karloff's most unforgettable role.

If you prefer old-fashioned monster movies with all the fun cheesiness that entails, you may be disappointed with this version. There are no miniature people presided over by a cackling Dr. Praetorius, and if you thought the joy on the monster's face when drinking and smoking was the best part of Karloff's Frankenstein, nothing here will measure up. It's a very good movie, but it's heavier than the Universal classic.

Randy Quaid, who has made a career of portraying oversized misfits with pathos (see "Of Mice and Men"), again displays his spectacular but underrated mastery in his role as the monster. Patrick Bergin is convincing as the creepy yet sympathetic Dr. Frankenstein, and the other actors support the story well.

Overall, an excellent addition to your video library if you prefer a more sober interpretation of Shelley's story to the classic monster movie interpretation; or if you're just plain nuts about Frankenstein and his monster.

This film changes the way Frankenstein creates his creature, but is nevertheless faithful to Mary Shelley's intent when she wrote this book in 1811 at the age of 19. The film shows us what can happen when people replace God and ethics with a belief in the supremacy of science and experimentation. Shelley feared what modern technology could do when used by people with large egos and little morality. In this movie, we see the doppelganger of Victor and his creature portrayed very well. It also points out the horrific consequences society reaps when people are denied love, acceptance, and nurturing. The Creature starts as a childlike innocent, but his "unfinished" and awkward appearance causes people to strike at him or react with revulsion. Patrick Bergin and Randy Quaid are excellent as Victor and the Creature, respectively; so is John Mills as the blind man. The ending makes perfect sense, although it differs slightly from the novel's. This is a much better movie than the better publicized one starring Kenneth Branagh and Robert DeNiro.

This film really needs an American DVD release, soon. Having just ordered the book, I look forward to seeing how "close" they really came to following the storyline. It's very possible Mary Shelley would've have been pleased with this version and Kenneth Branaugh's. I guess I'll know after reading the book. The bigger question is, can this version be a stand in for the book? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the movie isn't enjoyable. Patrick Bergin who plays the doctor does a decent job, but Randy Quaid as the monster makes the movie his. Showing the lonliness, the compassion, and of course the anger after being abandoned by Victor was performed very well. He was only violent when he felt threatened by man, few people were nice to him, granted, but as the saying goes "you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover."
Of course, back in those days, it was much easier to mistake malice for confusion.
Final note: I don't know why so many had such problems with the version right after this one, yeah, they added some parts, but that didn't hurt the story for me. Both versions were good, but this one comes out on top for me.

Bought this for my husband, a high school English teacher who teaches Frankenstein. He said it was an entertaining adaptation, but for a storyline closest to the book, try the Hallmark 2004 Frankenstein with Luke Goss and Alec Newman.

The movie doesn't have any good acting (all mediocre) and Bergin (who I liked in "Lost World") isn't very good as the doctor. I'd get it though for the really fake (but hillarious) cat-snake!

I was blown away when this version first aired on TNT in 1993. Like someone said above, it was eclipsed by the high-profile Brannagh version, but the two are worlds apart. I admit I had my doubts about Randy Quaid as the Monster, but he is perfect. The wonderful framing device with the icebound ship (taken from the novel, but omitted in the Universal and Hammer variations) is beautifully filmed. Making the Monster a true doppelganger for the tortured Dr. Frankenstein (right down to the chilling first moments of the creature's life, when he produces the same sick cough as the doc) is an excellent dramatic device. Experience a Frankenstein like none before. . .with two great actors and characters "locked in hate and loathing." An overlooked classic.

Frankenstein (1993) is based on the Classic Mary Shelley Horror story. This is perhaps the best 'Frankenstein' film around, faithful to the book, Patrick Bergin plays Dr. Frankenstein, Randy Quaid is the hideous monster. The movie has a a great score by John Cameron and is shot in beautiful locations.