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
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.
John Cleese,especially,makes a very memorable part as the mysterious mentor Professor Waldman,which shows Frankenstein the secrets of Life.
And not to forget Kenneth Brannaghs characterization of the manic, desperate and not too forget intense Dr. Victor Frankenstein is completely without competition.
It's in this part Brannaghs sense of Dramatical flare and theatrical intensity really comes into its right, and manages to put the madness of Frankenstein into an incredible sharp relief.
You get an understanding of why Frankenstein does what he does.. The Death of his mother,the want to beat Death, all of these factors formed Frankenstein up to the moment where he creates and reanimates the Monster
Ah, The Monster.. In all the excitement I almost forget Robert De Niro's excellent rendition of the monster. In his characterization the monster isn't just a lifeless and soulless being,but a humane being with wishes,desires,wants and lusts..
He feels and experiences everything with such a strenght and intensity as noone really can describe. And he tries to adapt to a world which is completely hostile to his existence, even his Father he learns will not love him or know him.
The Monster is like a child, trying to cope with emotions and feelings much stronger than anything we can imagine or percieve. And maybe it is that which makes the Monster so reckognizable?. Because he is us, and we are him?
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.
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