Frankenstein

This version of Frankenstein is by far the best and truest version of the classic book written by Mary Shelley; both in content and intent. A true feeling for the period that this book was written in can be felt in this film. This is not the "Hollywood-let's re-write the story-Kennith Brannagh, DeNero-version" and it is not overacted. It is the story as it was meant to be told; with all the pathos, depth and empathy that it was intended to inspire, as well as horror. I am impressed by Alec Newman,(dune) once again, and Luke Goss gives an outstanding performance. Sutherland and Hurt, as always, shine. Finally, there is a more-than-watchable version of the first true science fiction story ever written.

When I first stumbled upon this film while channel-surfing, I thought it was a bad vampire movie. After listening closely to the dialogue, I realized that this was Frankenstein. Not only was it Frankenstein, but it was the most true-to-the-novel Frankenstein I'd ever seen.

Generally made for TV movies aren't a double thumbs up, but this was actually very enjoyable. The acting was well and the scenery was gorgeous. I was very satisfied at how superb a job Hallmark did on Mary Shelly's classic.

If one wishes to see a more Universal-type Frankenstein, look no further than Boris Karloff's version. If, however, one is tired of Frankenstein remakes after Frankenstein remakes, all modeled after the Hollywood tellings and not Shelley's piece, then one will be pleased with Hallmark's version.

I give this an eight out of ten.

For the most part I enjoyed this, mostly, faithful adaptation of the novel. It's a not masterpiece by any means, but it's a hansom production. The acting, for the most part, is good by Alec Newman as the Victor Frankenstein and Luke Goss as the creature. Actually Goss gives a really good performance, acutally his portrayal of the creature is probably the most sympathetic I've seen. William Hurt, Donald Sutherland, and Julie Delpy in supporting roles don't hurt the film by any means. One flaw is that the creature wasn't scary looking. He looked like someone with a skin deformity but not someone I would find scary. I thought the film could be more suspenseful than it is. At least we now have version that is at least 90% faithful to the novel, unlike most, which are usually about 5% faithful, even Kenneth Branagh's version took a lot of liberties.

A Hallmark production, "Frankenstein" (2004) is the most literary faithful filmic version of the oft-done tragedy. Luke Goss looks more like the novel's depiction of the creature (with long black hair and white teeth) than Boris Karloff in the Universal classics or Robert De Niro in the 1994 version, but he's also too handsome in a dark gothic way, resembling Type O Negative's Peter Steele. The creature in the 1994 version didn't have hair and was a more gruesome depiction, which fits Victor's description of the creature in the book as "hideous" (then, again, Victor was extremely biased against his creation).

While this rendition and the 1994 one are the most faithful to Shelley's book, they each omit parts and change certain things. For instance, both omit Victor's traveling to Scotland and, later, Ireland, which was a good call. Actually, I think both versions improve the story in different ways. When Victor and the creature finally meet and have a discussion in the high country, this one has them meet at a ruined castle, which is an excellent deviation. The 1994 version has them talk at a remote glacial dwelling, which is closer to what occurs in the novel.

My favorite part is when the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family, unbeknownst to them. It helps the viewer get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight. In the book and the 1994 version all sympathy is pretty much lost eventually while this rendition paints the creature more sympathetically. The locket sequence is lame though, but that was a weak point of the novel as well.

Alec Newman is intense and brooding as Victor Frankenstein and I could relate to his work obsessions carried out in his nightgown (or whatever). Any problems with the flick are due to translating a convoluted 19th century gothic horror classic to modern cinema.

With almost an hour more to play with compared to the 1994 version, this one has the luxury of taking its time and is the better for it IMHO. The 1994 movie, by contrast, is overly manic and melodramatic because it tried to cram too much into two hours.

The film runs 2 hours, 56 minutes, and was shot in Slovakia and Norway.

GRADE: B+

I liked this version. Sutherland and Hurt were good in this. In the beginning the acting seemed kind of bad but Alex Newman did a great job in this. For me, he really saved the beginning. I never saw the DeNero version so I can't say anything about it but I did see the Boris version and I did read the book and I have to say that it did impress me.Hurt was good, Goss was good, Sutherland was good,but Newman really made this movie I think. As for people saying that the dialog was annoying, it was annoying in the book too. Slow scenes were the same in the book. All in all, it was a good screening of the book. I liked having an articulate creature, it was how I pictured in while reading it. If the other actors had better acting in it, It would have raised the 'out of 10' rating for me.