VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,3/10
61.248
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Quando il brillante ma poco ortodosso scienziato Dr. Victor Frankenstein rifiuta l'uomo artificiale che ha creato, la Creatura fugge e più tardi giura vendetta.Quando il brillante ma poco ortodosso scienziato Dr. Victor Frankenstein rifiuta l'uomo artificiale che ha creato, la Creatura fugge e più tardi giura vendetta.Quando il brillante ma poco ortodosso scienziato Dr. Victor Frankenstein rifiuta l'uomo artificiale che ha creato, la Creatura fugge e più tardi giura vendetta.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 1 Oscar
- 20 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
This interpretation of the story "Frankenstein", with personalities like Kenneth Brannagh,Ian Holmes,Helena-Bonham Carter and John Cleese amongst others is so incredible in its execution and dramatic flare.
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?
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
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 :)))
Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont (who later disowned this film) and ambitiously directed by Kenneth Branagh, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a likable film which succeeds mostly in a refreshingly old-fashioned, Hammeresque vein. (I think Christopher Lee hated this movie and equally class-dripping Bram Stoker's Dracula because he felt that they were competing in the same area.) There's the classic monsters (Robert DeNiro!), the period sets, the lovely heroines in the lovely period costumes, the beautiful and suitably turbulent score... Certainly not a perfect film, but as a classy, gorgeous monster movie, it is a woefully underrated one.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizVeteran horror actor Sir Christopher Lee, who played the Creature in Hammer Studio's La maschera di Frankenstein (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."
- BlooperThe 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.
- Citazioni
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.
- Versioni alternativeThere 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.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Frankenstein
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 45.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 22.006.296 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 11.212.889 USD
- 6 nov 1994
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 112.006.296 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 3 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the Japanese language plot outline for Frankenstein di Mary Shelley (1994)?
Rispondi