The movie is a close adaptation of the novel.It has good special effects.It is really tragic because the body count is big and made tragical it is made sad when someone dies not like in F13TH you feel sad for each victim.You see The Bride of Frankenstein not like in the original UNIVERSAL film.You see Frankenstein's brother in this version and it is tragic that he dies.The movie overall is sad.The monster is ugly.Proffesor Waldman appears.The movie has a dark tone of revenge and the monster has his revenge not by killing Frankenstein it is by killing his loved people.Frankenstein has a reason he is angry with dead...who isn't.Helena Boham Carter strangely has contact she plays Elizabeth who later turns The Bride of Frankenstein.Henry Clerval gives some kind of comedy tone to the movie...not darkness like Robert De Niro our monster.The bride looks groase she is uglier than The Monster.Finally the monster is ashamed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The BEST Frankenstein ever made....
Added 11/8/2009
Kenneth Branagh directs this amazing telling of Mary Shelly's original book. The visuals are amazing, De Niro plays the monster to Oscar calibur quality, and Branagh directs himself as Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as his love interest. The best part of this movie is the fact that it doesn't shy away from the subject matter. It takes a head on approach, showing in gruesome detail what happens when man decides to play God. This is one that should be in your collection!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Over-the-top gothic mania
Added 10/5/2009
Kenneth Branagh's 1994 version of the oft-filmed Frankenstein story offers a mixed experience. On the one hand, the film has some fine actors and LOOKS great -- sets, costumes, locations (England and the Swiss Alps), etc. There are some good scenes, like the creature's time spent with the peasant family where his unseen help is mistaken as a "good spirit of the woods."
On the other hand, the film is so over-the-top it's hard to enjoy, specifically during the first hour, before the monster escapes, and the final 40 minutes or so. The tempo during the initial 55 minutes (and then later) is ultra-manic -- characters are introduced, scenes flash by, times constantly shift, the soundtrack blares and everyone overdoes it. Seriously, the characters are so melodramatically over-the-top in every scene I just wanted them to stop, take their meds, and chill for about five minutes.
I realize Branagh wanted to throw everything in but the kitchen sink but, by doing this, he failed. This is definitely a case where less is more. Take, for instance, the bookend arctic sequences; they could have been omitted altogether with no harm done. Branagh needed to take a chill pill and cut out unnecessary details so viewers could enjoy the gothic settings and get to know the characters. But, no, everything's so manic it's laughable -- people constantly emoting, yelling, running, confronting, fighting, dying -- "Ahhhhhh!!!!!" "NoooOOOOOoooooo!!!!!" Et cetera. It's like Branagh assumed everyone watching the film would have ADHD or something. Of course, I realize some people may prefer this approach; if so, they'll likely appreciate this movie.
Regardless, the film and cast do look good and Robert De Niro's great as the creature. I especially liked the aforementioned part where the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family (unbeknownst to them); in fact, I wish the film would have spent even more time developing this important sequence. It helped us get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight; but when he ludicrously frames someone with a locket and murders a boy all sympathy is pretty much lost. On the other hand, he IS a 'monster,' after all.
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is similar to 1992's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in that they both look awesome but are ultimately disappointing in their storytelling. But I like "Dracula" more because of the well-done first hour or so; not to mention it's not ridiculously manic.
GRADE: C- or a weak 3/5 Stars
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
It's okay.
Added 7/2/2009
Huge monster movie fan, this was basically no different from any other Frankenstein film. Deniro is good but is barely in the piece, pretty lame all in all.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
DON'T BELIEVE THE CRITICS
Added 4/6/2009
AS MOVIE FANS KNOW MOST OF THE TIME THE "PROFESSIONAL CRITICS" DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.THIS VERSION OF THE CLASSIC IS THE BEST AND MOST ENTERTAINING YET.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
The movie is a close adaptation of the novel.It has good special effects.It is really tragic because the body count is big and made tragical it is made sad when someone dies not like in F13TH you feel sad for each victim.You see The Bride of Frankenstein not like in the original UNIVERSAL film.You see Frankenstein's brother in this version and it is tragic that he dies.The movie overall is sad.The monster is ugly.Proffesor Waldman appears.The movie has a dark tone of revenge and the monster has his revenge not by killing Frankenstein it is by killing his loved people.Frankenstein has a reason he is angry with dead...who isn't.Helena Boham Carter strangely has contact she plays Elizabeth who later turns The Bride of Frankenstein.Henry Clerval gives some kind of comedy tone to the movie...not darkness like Robert De Niro our monster.The bride looks groase she is uglier than The Monster.Finally the monster is ashamed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The BEST Frankenstein ever made....
Added 11/8/2009
Kenneth Branagh directs this amazing telling of Mary Shelly's original book. The visuals are amazing, De Niro plays the monster to Oscar calibur quality, and Branagh directs himself as Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as his love interest. The best part of this movie is the fact that it doesn't shy away from the subject matter. It takes a head on approach, showing in gruesome detail what happens when man decides to play God. This is one that should be in your collection!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Over-the-top gothic mania
Added 10/5/2009
Kenneth Branagh's 1994 version of the oft-filmed Frankenstein story offers a mixed experience. On the one hand, the film has some fine actors and LOOKS great -- sets, costumes, locations (England and the Swiss Alps), etc. There are some good scenes, like the creature's time spent with the peasant family where his unseen help is mistaken as a "good spirit of the woods."
On the other hand, the film is so over-the-top it's hard to enjoy, specifically during the first hour, before the monster escapes, and the final 40 minutes or so. The tempo during the initial 55 minutes (and then later) is ultra-manic -- characters are introduced, scenes flash by, times constantly shift, the soundtrack blares and everyone overdoes it. Seriously, the characters are so melodramatically over-the-top in every scene I just wanted them to stop, take their meds, and chill for about five minutes.
I realize Branagh wanted to throw everything in but the kitchen sink but, by doing this, he failed. This is definitely a case where less is more. Take, for instance, the bookend arctic sequences; they could have been omitted altogether with no harm done. Branagh needed to take a chill pill and cut out unnecessary details so viewers could enjoy the gothic settings and get to know the characters. But, no, everything's so manic it's laughable -- people constantly emoting, yelling, running, confronting, fighting, dying -- "Ahhhhhh!!!!!" "NoooOOOOOoooooo!!!!!" Et cetera. It's like Branagh assumed everyone watching the film would have ADHD or something. Of course, I realize some people may prefer this approach; if so, they'll likely appreciate this movie.
Regardless, the film and cast do look good and Robert De Niro's great as the creature. I especially liked the aforementioned part where the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family (unbeknownst to them); in fact, I wish the film would have spent even more time developing this important sequence. It helped us get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight; but when he ludicrously frames someone with a locket and murders a boy all sympathy is pretty much lost. On the other hand, he IS a 'monster,' after all.
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is similar to 1992's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in that they both look awesome but are ultimately disappointing in their storytelling. But I like "Dracula" more because of the well-done first hour or so; not to mention it's not ridiculously manic.
GRADE: C- or a weak 3/5 Stars
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
