Customer Reviews

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein [Blu-ray]

5 star:		(52)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(24)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Maybe I have deplorable tastes, but I liked Branagh's version of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." In fact, I watched it twice in a row just to make sure. Yep, despite the generally negative critical reviews of this film, I like this version of Shelley's immortal classic a lot.

What sold me on "Frankenstein" was the relative faithfulness to the spirit of the book. (I say relative, because bringing a novel to the screen involves some necessary alteration. The two media are different.)

Shelley's hastily-written tale pits Man and Science against God and Nature. Surprise, surprise, Man loses. Branagh is believable as the obsessed and arrogant Frankenstein who stops at nothing, risks everything to beat Death. Robert DiNiro is absolutely the most true Frankenstein's monster ever depicted on screen.

The scene where Frankenstein brings the monster to life is thrilling. The set looks right, the scheme of reanimation is brilliant. It's my favorite scene in the film.

There is a lot that is excessive and frankly over the top in the film, but to me that added to the Nineteenth Century feel and pacing. Romantic literature can be huge--because Romanticism exaggerates and dramatizes the heroic and tragic. This film captures that sensibility.

If you look at any of the other attempts to film Shelley's novel, you might agree with me that they don't come close to doing justice to the novel (for example, the old black and white film, which is not one of my favorites, and the more recent flop "The Bride".) This version comes very close, perhaps as close as a film can come to Shelley's masterpiece.

Both one of the most horror-oriented and one of the most thought-provoking versions of the often-filmed tale, "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" brings together a great cast - spearheaded by Robert DeNiro as the Monster and Kenneth Brannagh as Victor Von Frankenstein - for a big, epic production. It features stunning visual imagery and grand atmosphere, and some truly haunting quotes from the Monster. The Monster is perhaps the best developed here of all his screen appearances, a brilliant and sensitive soul being consumed by the rage and darkness inside his artificial being. Rarely has the picture of a monster's brutality being shaped by the world it's found itself thrust into been handled so brilliantly, and the overall attributes of the creature this brutality grows in - superhuman strength, a slowly emerging genius intellect, powerful emotions the creature has never had the chance to learn to control (having been 'born' fully grown), unnatural resistance to injury and heightened endurance, etc. - makes for a frightening force. Victor Von Frankenstein's portrayal is not one of a man who conciously chose to ignore the moral considerations and responsibilities of what he's doing, but a man upon whom such concerns simply never dawned for a second, until he's face to face with the consequences of his actions and it's too late for second thoughts. This has been said of the Frankenstein tale time and time again, but it continues to hold up: this story gets more eerily relevant to the modern world with each passing year.

It's among the career highlights for everyone involved, and with not only heavyweights DeNiro and Brannagh onboard but also such excellent talent as Helena Bonham Carter, John Cleese (in a rare non-comedic role), Francis Ford Coppola and Frank Darabont (director of "The Green Mile" and "Buried Alive", among others), that's saying a lot. Excellnt movie; one of 1994's best

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a masterful motion picture. While it does take a few liberties with Shelley's classic novel, it does a wonderful job of capturing the essence of the original story, specifically the humanity of the creature. While a little over-the-top at times and surprisingly gory, this film forcefully echoes Shelley's philosophical, moral, and ethical questions, and by so doing redefines the creature in its original image. What I have always found to be the most crucial scenes in the story are here displayed in all of their troubling glory, and perhaps it is the heightened intellectual nature of this film that explains why a surprisingly large number of people find disappointment where I find stimulating triumph. There are enough horror-laden scenes to capture the attention of the general horror lover, but the real substance of this story, for those who prefer their monster to serve as a complicated, amoral representation of man himself, is ambrosia for those who are more fascinated by the questions Frankenstein raises than by the horrors he unleashes.

The inspiration for young Victor Frankenstein's obsession with conquering death is delineated pretty clearly, given its most intense emotional charge by the death of his doting mother while giving birth to his little brother. His time at university is a little rushed, however, strangely incorporating the influence of a mentor whose work Victor vows to complete; where the older doctor halted his studies out of fear, Victor will push over the brink without hesitation. Victor's lab is a bit overdone, featuring all manner of miscellaneous gizmos, vials, and wossnames that look impressive with blue bolts of electricity (not generated by lightning, by the way) pulsing through them. The monster, as we first meet him, is less than impressive, and a prolonged scene of Victor water-wrestling a guy wearing a patently fake body suit inserts a little unfortunate levity into what should be a most serious scene. Victor's reaction to his creation is probably the weakest spot in an otherwise powerful film, as his sudden repudiation of everything he has ever worked for rings patently false.

It is with the entrance of the monster, however, that this film truly begins to shine. Mary Shelley's monster is not evil, nor is he a monster in the stereotypical sense by which he has come to be viewed by modern audiences. He is most definitely a victim and a creature deserving of much sympathy. Abandoned by his creator, his first interaction with mankind finds him fleeing a mob intent on hurting him for no reason apart from his ugliness. He takes shelter in a pigsty adjoined to a simple house in the country, and through a crack in the wall he not only learns to read and write, he gets to experience vicariously the joys and travails of family life. He becomes a guardian angel of sorts, secretly helping the family survive and prosper. At Christmas, in a truly touching scene, he finds a gift the family has left outside for their secret helper. One day, he gets a chance to actually interact with the blind old man of the house, sitting and conversing with another human for the first time in his wretched life, but all too quickly the family he had come to think of as his own, chases him away with blows and curses. If your heart does not break at the sight of the creature sobbing in the forest after this ultimate betrayal by mankind, you are the true monster. This whole scene is absolutely critical in terms of explaining who the monster is and why he does what he goes on to do, yet most film adaptations skip this scene entirely. Only now does the creature vow to seek revenge on the creator who abandoned him; only now has this ultimate victim become a monster in the form of amoral man.

The rest of the film is handled quite well, and Helena Bonham Carter is simply wonderful in her role as Victor's significant other. The ending goes beyond the scope of the original novel, and it does so in a strikingly grisly way, but the overall effect of this film is true to Shelley's original vision. Robert De Niro gives a particularly compelling performance as Frankenstein's monster, the look and feel of the late eighteenth-century setting is spot on, and the musical soundtrack complements the plot extraordinarily well. While I would prefer to see a movie strictly faithful to Shelley's novel, this exemplary albeit somewhat effusive adaptation hits the core messages of the story dead on and stands, in my opinion, as a truly impressive cinematic accomplishment.

That meaning something is missing from both the film and the DVD. I agree with various reviewers that this should be more entitled "Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein", because that is essentially what it is. It's more a rehash of the British Horrors of the 60s, and hardly a faithful rendition of the novel. Even Bride of Frankenstein was more faithful than this.
The story begins very well with the voyage of the Sea Captain encountering the emaciated Dr. F, a footnote not many are familiar with. The story begins from Victor's childhood, and the tragedy of his Mother's death turns his quest into an obsession. The build-up towards the Creature's birthing sequence is very well staged. I do like DeNiro's develop of the Creature. First as a mentally underdeveloped brute, then slowly becoming educated through sight, touch, sense, smell, and taste. Heck, anybody who maintains a fairly decent complexion through a balanced diet of raw potatoes should catch on quickly. After the inevitable scene where the Creature is banished from humankind and seeks revenge is where the entire story begins to spin madly out of control.

Too many key scenes in the film that DO take place in the novel all occur out of sequence. The Monster's encounter with Victor in the snow mountains, the murder of William, and the hanging of Justine. In the novel, Justine is condemned to the gallows, and Victor seeking solitude has a not so fortuitous encounter with his creation. There the Creature tells his story beginning with his birth. It's the same thing for Elizabeth's death scene. He was supposed to strangle her - not play Mortal Kombat by plucking her heart out. Following that where Victor revives an amalgamated Elizabeth/Justine is too campy. It spoofs not only BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, but all the others; Andy Warhol's 1974 FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, even FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND. I do like that Helena Bonham Carter, like Catherine Rabett before her makes a sexy Elizabeth. John Cleese, Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, and Ian Holm are also always joys to see onscreen.

I'll say Kenneth Branagh and Robert DeNiro had a good time making this movie. I like the scene where he tries about thirteen times to help him stand over a layer of amniotic fluid. Patrick Doyle's score and Roger Pratt's camerawork also don't help the production much, making the film even more overwhelming. So do I recommend it? I'm ashamed to say it, but yes. The trouble is I still have YET to see a movie version of the novel that is entirely faithful. The film has it's strengths and weaknesses, and is still an enjoyable treat for those in the mood for an entirely different perception of FRANKENSTEIN than the Gothic trademark laboratory and lightning.

As far as the DVD is concerned, the picture and sound quality is outstanding. The color contrasts are treated so they are appropriately light during day, and bluish-dark during night. This is not an uncommon restoration process through silent classics. Seeing the film in widescreen also gives it a very different dimension. The VHS version looks too lacking in color and contrast. Watch it with the lights turned off, and you'll see what I mean. The extras include French and Spanish audio, and the original trailer, plus strangely enough the MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING trailer. My only disappointment with it is there is no audio commentary from Branagh and/or DeNiro. If a newer version of the DVD is released including an audio commentary I would be very interested in hearing it.

To wrap it all up, this is a good version of the FRANKENSTEIN saga, but along the way, I can never help but feel something just is not appropriately registered.

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is an incredibly melodramatic adaptation of the book that takes huge liberties with the plot, but I still find it thoroughly entertaining. The movie is perfectly cast, and I think that the embellishments that Kenneth Branagh takes with the story only make the film more enjoyable. Even though I doubt that Dr. Frankenstein ran around without a shirt on as much as Branagh does in the film, most women will probably find it quite enjoyable. Robert DeNiro is amaing in his role of "the creature," and Helena Bonham Carter gives a great performance as Elizabeth. If you're the type of person who detests it when filmmakers stray too far from the text of the book they're adapting, then this film probably isn't for you. If you're a bit more open-minded and are just looking for an entertaining movie to watch, this is a perfect film to add to your collection.

3 days ago, I saw this DVD in my friends house and he told me that he hasn't seen it it yet. That day was the last day of watching "Hamlet" in our school. We are studying Hamlet and our teachers showed it to us. 2 Years ago We also watched Othello, and I was shocked by Kenneth Branag. Hamlet made me the Fan of him. With the excitement of watching another wonderful Kenneth Branagh film, I brought it home. Next day I was alone. I closed the curtains and turned up the volume, and started the film. I was shocked at the end. This film was more than I expected. After that I tooked my Frankenstein book, which I had never had started for 5 years, and started to read it. I discovered that it was far more different than the film. But WHO CARES?? We are not looking at the same version as the film. I look at the quality of work done and influence one me!(That I am still in the mood of film). Some reviews, even the top 500 reviewer, made some mistakes. 1) Kenneth Branagh is not English, He is Irish. 2) The influence of the film refering to the captain Quinn is that he is in the same situation as Frankenstein. Going on the way he believes or going on the way as he can be alive. 3) Those kind of stiches were the only kind at those times. You cannot think of an aesthetic stich on the Monster. 4) How can any horror film can be suitable for children. No one should care for it. Cast is terrific, the film is good, and the effects are well designed. I am sad because of people don't like this shocking film. The only way you can make a comment of the film is to watch it.

I really enjoyed this movie. I thought the story was excellent. I had expected Frankenstein to be your classic, everyday, lame horror film which you only watch to get some cheap thrills, and see some horrible overacting. I didn't find it so at all.
This movie was beautifully done - a powerful, dynamic story of how man attempts to achieve greatness, but ends up ruining their lives and the lives of others as a result. I have not read Mary Shelley's book, but if it has half the emotional effect of this movie, I'll consider it time well spent!
Kenneth Branagh brought this movie together wonderfully, with both his directing and powerful, memorable acting as the tormented Dr. Victor Frankenstein.
This film is quite simply spectacular! It goes in the same category as From Hell, they are both too sophisticated and beautiful to be JUST horror films. The cleverness of this film and its sheer radiance must throw some people off. Robert De Niro is the creature! De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own.
Well worth having a look at, and the photography alone makes it worth owning on DVD.

WEll, to put it simple, this movie is amazing. I loved the acting. DeNiro, damn! What can I say. He's great in it. They're all great in it. That guy from Animal House, why doesn't he get more rolls? He can really act. Totally impressed. Great sets and locations, too. It was romantic in a very bizarre way. I really don't care for mushy films but this was very mismerizing. I totally bought it. I also liked the camera work. *SIDENOTE* I never even heard of this film. When I rented it I thought it was this other Frankenstein movie (which I just learned is) called 'Frankenstein Unbound'. I didn't see all of UNBOUND so I thought I would rent it, (ten years later) MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN was the version I thought I had seen some of over ten years ago. To my delight and surprize ('cause I kept waiting for a time travel scene, that never happened-those who have seen FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND will know what I'm talking about) I kept thinking, 'I don't remember it being this good'. This movie is brilliant. I ran out and bought it and am glad to say it is a diffenate part of my DVD collection. EXCELLENT MOVIE, try it, you won't be let down. This movie is underappreciated, at best! Great acting, great sets, great effects and great story. What more could you ask for?

I have to wonder when I read reviews of this film stating with a straight face that it bears no resemblance to the book. From its beginnings with the sea captain discovering Victor Frankenstein in the arctic--which was the original framing device for Mary Shelley's novel, just as it is in the film--to the climactic confrontation between Frankenstein and his creature in the same frigid North, this is the most faithful adaptation of Shelley's novel that has ever been made. The only one that even comes close is TNT's adaptation starring Randy Quaid as the Creature, made the year before this one. Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. and Robert DeNiro as the Creature are the anchors of this film. It's good to finally see a film adaptation that remembers that the creature had the power of speech in the book, and did not grunt in monosyllables the way Karloff's monster does in Bride of Frankenstein. On the down side, Branagh does take his shirt off a bit too much in the film, and the reanimation of Elizabeth is pointless and gory. But the central theme of Victor's egocentric quest to defy death is here, as well as the metaphor of the father-child relationship between the scientist and his creation. People not familiar with the novel need to realize that part of the point of this story was that the Creature was not evil--he was made bitter and hateful by his rejection at the hands of his creator and most of the other humans he encountered. Here, as in the Shelley novel, the Creature is actually far more noble at heart than most of the more ostensibly "human" characters.

As far as fidelity to the book--within the reasonable limitations of a bigbudget Hollywood film--this is practically the only Frankenstein film that exists for me.

As far as fun and pathos, I do still highly recommend the Karloff films, particularly "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein".

This film was....not good.

Essentially, it came across to me as I watched it that Branagh had shanghaied Mary Shelley's literary classic and mangled it into something that would, for lack of a better summary, allow him to strip off his shirt and run around glistening with goo for no reason (and several minutes of my life I'll never get back).

This is only one example of the gross indignities to which Branagh, in an attempt, apparently, to prove that he could have done a better job writing Frankenstein than Frankenstein's author did, subjected the macabre classic.

He showed complete disrespect not only for the tone and overlaying themes of Shelley's carefully crafted masterwork, but even for the basic FACTUAL CONTENT of the novel he so diligently cashes in upon. (Plague? Hello?)

Just read the book, people--live a little, think a little, and for the love of god don't use this to cheat on any papers, because it's pretty much the opposite of anything you'd actually find in the book.

P.S. I put one star for this review because Amazon made me. I would have preferred zero.