Lorsque le scientifique brillant mais peu orthodoxe, le Dr Victor Frankenstein, rejette l'homme artificiel qu'il a créé, la créature s'échappe et jure plus tard de se venger.Lorsque le scientifique brillant mais peu orthodoxe, le Dr Victor Frankenstein, rejette l'homme artificiel qu'il a créé, la créature s'échappe et jure plus tard de se venger.Lorsque le scientifique brillant mais peu orthodoxe, le Dr Victor Frankenstein, rejette l'homme artificiel qu'il a créé, la créature s'échappe et jure plus tard de se venger.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 1 Oscar
- 20 nominations au total
Avis à la une
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!
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesVeteran horror actor Sir Christopher Lee, who played the Creature in Hammer Studio's Frankenstein s'est échappé (1957), was asked at the premiere of this film about the differences between his version and this new adaptation. Lee replied, "About forty years and forty million dollars."
- GaffesThe opening crawl states that Captain Robert Walton set sail in the early 19th century. Then the next caption states that it is 1794, which is still in the 18th century.
The prologue actually states that it is "the dawn of the 19th Century," which in common English vernacular refers to the period of time around the start of the new century. The year 1794 would fall within this reference.
- Citations
The Creature: I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.
- Versions alternativesThere is a work-print circulating which contains gore which was cut to earn an "R" rating, as well as other scenes, including the Fay Ripley scene and the re-animated dog scene.
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 45 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 22 006 296 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 11 212 889 $US
- 6 nov. 1994
- Montant brut mondial
- 112 006 296 $US
- Durée2 heures 3 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1