Frankenstein de Mary Shelley

... 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.

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 :)))

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.

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.

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.