AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,3/10
61 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Quando o brilhante, mas heterodoxo cientista Dr. Victor Frankenstein, rejeita o homem artificial que ele criou, a criatura escapa e jura vingança.Quando o brilhante, mas heterodoxo cientista Dr. Victor Frankenstein, rejeita o homem artificial que ele criou, a criatura escapa e jura vingança.Quando o brilhante, mas heterodoxo cientista Dr. Victor Frankenstein, rejeita o homem artificial que ele criou, a criatura escapa e jura vingança.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 1 Oscar
- 20 indicações no total
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
I nearly spit out my teeth when I saw how low Frankenstein (94) score was. This film is quite simply spectacular! It goes in the same category as From Hell, they are both too sophisticated and beautiful to be JUST horror films. The cleverness of this film and its sheer radiance must throw some people off. Robert De Niro is the creature! De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own. De Niro's performance brings out genuine pity, sorrow, and most importantly, fear. Kenneth Branagh has always added a bit of class to his films, and his version of Frankenstein is no different. A visually brilliant triumph as a director.
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?
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesVeteran horror actor Sir Christopher Lee, who played the Creature in Hammer Studio's A Maldição de 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."
- Erros de gravaçãoThe 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.
- Citações
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.
- Versões alternativasThere 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.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Frankenstein
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 45.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 22.006.296
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 11.212.889
- 6 de nov. de 1994
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 112.006.296
- Tempo de duração2 horas 3 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.85 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
What is the Japanese language plot outline for Frankenstein de Mary Shelley (1994)?
Responda