Avis des utilisateurs

While many people seem to scorn this film, I found it wonderfully enjoyable. Like the great Orson Welles, He stars in, and directs, many of his movies. This one in particular shows some of his more excentric, if not marketable, passions in filmmaking that make movie buffs and connaisseurs alike enjoy this stylized and emotional film.

Yes, it is melodramatic. Yes, the acting is often over the top. But what many critics of this film fail to recognize is that this is precisly the point. By staying very true to the source material(until the Elizabeth thing) and the significant changes that WERE made are clear evidence of this. The book was melodramatic. What Kenneth Branagh does here is stay true to the spirit of the classic gothic novel. The great close-ups define the characters, and through them you can understand them. Do not mistake stylization for poor film-making, because this is a wonderfully made and presented film, that if understood captivates you from the first spoken words(a quote from Mary Shelly, setting up the stylization) to the last frame.

Know what you're getting into, a passionatly made film about what drives one to both excel and what drives one to madness, and the dangers of excess beyond reason. If you have read the book, regardless of whether you liked it or not,see this movie. You will love what they have retained, and will embrace what they've changed. this is not a film(not a movie, a film) for everyone. But for those who are willing to have an open mind, it is pure bliss!

When this first came out I thought it was a masterpiece. I was also a young man and had not experienced too many films yet. While this is still probably the best Frankenstein film IMO, in a recent viewing I was shocked to find that I really didn't hold it as high of regard as I did. Branaghs acting is way over the too and quite ridiculous even. I saw many things in the plot lines that are what I call lazy screenplay writing. Certain events were so forced by the charachters unrealistic actions that a lot of this film seemed quite silly. Deniro is really the main reason to watch the film. His performance was still quite good IMO. All in all this was a pleasant memory that didn't hold water for me personally with a more mature mindset. Still some great stuff in the film though.

In 1992 we got a romanticized version of Dracula. It seems that its success brought two like-minded movies in 1994: "Wolf" and "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Neither of them reached the acclaim level of "Bram Stokers' Dracula."

"Frankenstein" seemed too rushed. It was a big expensive production with a more than adequate budget. It had the look and feel as if they had to cut down a three hour movie to two. Things developed too quickly which made the key characters seem as though they were overly emotional and driven without a substantial motive.

All the proper elements were there for the movie to be as good as "Dracula": the budget, the cast, the set, and the story. If they could've slowed things down just a tad then the movie would've been so much better.

... Francis Coppola's hit with Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), and which sank quickly at the theaters for not following in its parent's footsteps--Coppola had other projects, tried to give it to another director, and ended up with one of Kenneth Branagh's first few attempts at non-Shakespeare movies, which Coppola later tried to distance himself from. It's also one of the most omnipresent of the Sony/Columbia Orphans, just about every-darn-where on streaming (if your service has "Gattaca", "Fifth Element", "Resident Evil", "Last Action Hero", "Seventh Voyage of Sinbad" and "Dracula", rest assured this one will be nearby), and I'd thought I should finally get around to streaming it just to be curious about why it hadn't lived up to its pedigree in the theaters.

It's actually not bad, now that we know what to expect: Branagh's since moved away from Shakespeare (after "Hamlet", he could never get another one back in theaters), and now specializes in gloriously overproduced period epics with costume/production-design abandon. Back in 1994, we didn't think of Ken as "the director of Marvel's Thor and Disney's live-action Cinderella", but now that we do, it's a full-tilt exercise in period-production budget. Like Coppola's film, the idea was to (claim to) go back and explore the themes of the original novel, and Ken's performance and Frank Darabont's script does a good job with that, showing Victor Frankenstein as a privileged rich-kid medical student destroying everything for his one personal obsession, in a Regency-steampunk lab powered by electric eels instead of Universal-Horror lightning. Robert DeNiro is intended to play the monster, and does a good job with the book's idea of a verbose creature who questions his own existence, but he's playing it a little too DeNiro--With just a few stitch-scars and a big cloak, he comes off not so much as an unearthly creation, but more like the escaped criminal that Pip met at the beginning of "Great Expectations".

It's good viewing if you take the movie at its own face value--There's one scene that deliberately tries to copy Coppola's abstract, dreamlike "Dracula" style, presumably to give in to Francis's complaints, and it sticks out from the rest of the movie like a sore thumb. The movie goes at Branagh's own wildly enthusiastic cosplay pace, and like his Hamlet movie, Ken's default style seems to be, when in doubt, shoot the scene Big. The story's attempt to top itself at every plot point does start going a little overwrought by the climax, but we realize that while he may not have made a Coppola followup, what he's done is create the world's most expensive Hammer film...Which is not always a bad thing.

I nearly spit out my teeth when I saw how low Frankenstein (94) score was. 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. De Niro's performance brings out genuine pity, sorrow, and most importantly, fear. Kenneth Branagh has always added a bit of class to his films, and his version of Frankenstein is no different. A visually brilliant triumph as a director.

Victor Frankenstein is the son of a famous doctor who watches his mother die in labour with his younger brother. As an idealistic young man he travels to university to study to become a great doctor. However he brings with him non-scientific teachings he has researched into life and the influence of electric currents. His belief is supported by shadowy lecturer Dr Waldeman and Frankenstein continues his work and brings a man back to life using parts of other men. Realising what he has done, Frankenstein leaves his monster to die but the creature learns fast and wants revenge for his creation.

I have seen far too many monster movies that all blur together and share the same focus on effects and gore than story or character. So when this was promoted as being close to the original material, dark and more of a story than a horror I was looking forward to watching it. For the most part it sort of works but it's main flaw runs all the way through it like a stick of rock – it's far too worthy. Or at least it thinks it is. The film has a constant swell of dramatic music that is only ever seconds away and it really makes the film feel grander and more serious than it really is. The film isn't scary but that wasn't a problem to me – it just has all these big worthy dialogue scenes with sudden pauses (up comes the music) and then lines. It doesn't work and the film feels heavy and even dull as a result.

This is never more evident than in Branagh's own performance. He is far too dashing and too much of a young man gone wrong to be believed. If he'd played it a little less worthy he would have been more of a human and less a cardboard type. De Niro really tries hard and did well for me. He may be stuck with a creature but it has been developed past the cliché (but not far enough perhaps). I did feel for him and it was all De Niro's doing. Carter is miscast both before and after – far to light and modern for the role, Briers is OK but Cleese is way to miscast. First of all the fact that he only appears half in shadows and when he opens his mouth the music comes up doesn't help, but it didn't feel like him. Quinn is a good cameo but the majority of the cast seem to have bought into the whole `worthy' thing and are dulled as a result.

Overall the film is worth watching because it is a good telling of the classic tale and De Niro does a good job of showing us the basic human behind the combined dead body parts. If only Branagh hadn't been overwhelmed by the sheer importance of what he thought he was doing and had let the film flow and bit more and given in less to worthy music, acting and directing.

The revival of Universals monsters ended here. Coppollas Dracula was an enormous success, so this came only two years later. And you had the mediocre Wolf with Jack Nicholson around the same time. The story is well known, don't mess with nature. I've never read Mary Shelley, so don't know how faitful Frank Darabount was when he wrote the script. BUT what could have been a great movie, falls apart in the seams with some very odd editing. Branagh, who both directs and plays Frankenstein bops around like a Formula 1 driver to start the story. First at the North Pole, then back to Frankenstein was a child, then grownup, then as a loudmouth student. We meet John Cleese as a very experimental scientist, who becomes Frankensteins mentor. And in what I thought was a flashback, we see him get killed. But it's not a flashback, it's the catalyst for Frankenstein to create a monster from his mentors killer. Very messy editing. In the end, the movie is a mix of omd Frankenstein and (IMO) the much better Bride of Frankenstein. Robert De Niro shows again why he was the best actor of his generation as the lonenly monster. Would be interesting to know how much of the editing is Brannagh, and how much was the execs wanted to shorten down the run time.

In 1794, Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) is obsessed with reaching the North Pole. His ship is frozen in and he encounters Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) followed by his monster (Robert De Niro). It's back in 1773 Geneva. His father Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm) brings home the orphan Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) whom Victor loves as they grow up together. After the death of his mother, he vows to eliminate death. In 1793, he's studying in Ingolstadt under the tutelage of Professor Waldman (John Cleese) and befriends Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce). Waldman is experimenting with electricity inspired by the Chinese. When Waldman dies, Victor steals his notes and tries to create life despite Waldman's warnings.

This is more of a costume drama than a horror. There is a fundamental problem with director Kenneth Branagh's vision. It feels like a lifeless melodrama. He's better off to cut out much of the beginning. Most of it is unnecessary other than introducing Helena Bonham Carter and having his mother die. The monster should be the heart of this movie but it takes too long to get there. The grotesque is so close but Branagh holds back. Instead, he's concentrating on making a broad melodrama. This is the shameful part because the experiment and the monster is well done. The overblown melodrama actually fits that part of the movie. The inclusion of the original ice voyage is again unnecessary but at least, it's something different.

One of Branagh's more maligned works, though for the life of me I can't see why. Sticking closer to the book than to any preconcieved notions of Boris Karloff (perhaps that's why), this injects true horror into the story of a medical student who brings a corpse to life. If you don't like melodrama then maybe it's not the thing for you, but this deserves a far better reputation than it has.

I recently had to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for my literature class and I loved it! So I was really excited to watch the movie that is supposed to be 'true to the original novel'. Let me tell you that I was QUITE disappointed. This film is nothing like the original novel. Kenneth Branaugh should be ashamed. This is probably his second worst film (after the musical version of Loves, Labours, Lost). He completely changed the ending, and it was terrible. If you're ever planning on watching the movie so that you don't have to for a class, DON'T! And just so you know, I do love the original 1931 version of Frankenstein, even though it is nothing like the novel either.

KENNETH BRANAGH gives dramatic Shakespearean treatment to Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, playing every scene as if he's in a Greek tragedy of tremendous depth. His over-the-top histrionics become increasingly overwhelming as the film goes on and on, badly needing some tightening in story structure. Instead, it comes across vividly in bits and pieces, stitched together much the way the monster itself was created by Victor Frankenstein.

There are genuinely frightful moments with creepiness made more effective by Patrick Doyle's score, but there are equally moments that serve no purpose in the story and are there simply for shock effect, such as the mother's death during childbirth.

ROBERT DiNIRO has to suffer beneath extravagantly scarred make-up but does a creditable job as the creature. Despite the realistic make-up, he's never as scary as Boris Karloff in the original Universal film nor does he ever overact the role the way Branagh does with Victor Frankenstein.

HELENA BONHAM CARTER is fine as Elizabeth and has some shocking moments toward the film's climax. Visually the film has some majestic photography and the special effects for the fire scenes are both realistic and gruesome.

This may be a more faithful rendering of the "Frankenstein" tale, but due to clumsy story structure and length, it's never tight enough to produce the kind of thrills it was after.

With a promise of being a faithful adaptation of the original book and directed by beyond competent director, it was a shame of how much of a misstep this turned out to be. Although the film has an amazing cast of award winning actors, their performances ultimately range from mellow dramatic to over the top and zany. Despite the parallels to the original source material, the execution of the overall story is boring and dull. It was ironic the fact that this film has such a long runtime, but rushes important plot points and relationships, making the film suffer in the process. The scenery and authenticity can be respected, the editing and special effects are mediocre at best. The design of the monster is bland and lacks an identity to the interpretations that have come before it. Overall this film was mediocre watch from beginning to end. Despite how much care can be seen in the film, the execution of certain concepts fail to stick the landing.

as i watched the trailer of the movie on TV, i thought it'll be another horror movie with the same old clichés, full of blood and disgusting scenes...However,when i saw the movie i was moved by the dramatic melancholic and tragic way in which branagh directed it...it wasn't at all such a trivial horror movie..on the contrary..it was another philosophical deep way of reviving Shelley's novel..it was another masterpiece of branagh's...he adopted the novel in such a delicate dramatic romantic way..and dipped into the moral that Shelley meant by her story..Branagh made of Victor Frankenstein another Odesseus whose vanity and arrogance makes him think that he could imitate God and defy Him..he made him a tragic hero haunted by the death of his mother which has created in him the urging desire of fighting death and creating an alternative life...Branagh's choice of the actors was more than perfect, De Niro made a sympathetic touching creature despite his violence and thick hands ,the creature in this movie managed to escape being another scary pale dead monster walking the earth as it was in the old Frankenstein movies,the genius De Niro made us feel and believe that this creature bears great equal amounts of love and rage and that if he cannot satisfy one ,he'll indulge the other (as he says to frankenstein), Helena Bonham Carter was splendid as Elizabeth,she was like the refreshing breeze in the movie which could decrease the intensity of the bloody scenes, Tom Hulce in the role of Henry was in his friendship to Victor as intimate as the friendship of Horatio to Hamlet, Ian Holm as the baron Frankenstein was very good ,but his part was too small that he couldn't show all his talents, Richard Briers was great in the role of the tender grandfather, and of course Kenneth Branagh himself as Frankenstein was perfect,he could make us pity for Frankenstein rather than hating him. Generally the movie despite its several bloody scenes,makes an intense powerful drama..and makes you saturated with a strange sense of melancholy after seeing it...Branagh's Frankenstein is really a must-see :)))