Frankenstein (1994)

Top comments

1. 

   inhonoredglory

   My sister and I read Mary Shelley's novel before watching this, and I must say, I'm impressed that it followed the text as much as it did. It banged through the book like a breathless madman, but at least it got the main points across: the 1700s atmosphere, the love story, the intelligent monster, the family in the woods, the ice and polar settings. Characterization changed up a little. The main difference in the film from the book is the new motivation added for Dr Frankenstein's creation: to bring back loved ones. Not in the book.
   
   But the movie by itself was quite breathless, nice quality, and great choice of actors. DeNiro as the monster was different, but it worked out nicely. Don't miss out the gradual change of the monster's face and speech. Also, nice music. Beautiful, just beautiful. 12 years 2 months ago
2. 

   Carota

   yeah, check #666 12 years 5 months ago
3. 

   Siskoid

   After the success of Coppola's hoary Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein couldn't be far behind. Coppola produces, Branagh directs and casts this thing as if it were one of his Shakespeare adaptations (many of his line readings, in fact sound cribbed from various other performances, some yet to come). And I'm afraid it's rather quite dull. The film just tries to fit too much of the novel in its 2-hour run time and as a result consistently feels rushed. It's a case of this happened, then this happened, then this despite a strong focus on the Victor-Elizabeth love story. That, at least, pays off in a horrific grand finale. I wish I could say Robert De Niro was worth the wait as the Monster, but he's not very expressive behind that make-up. Again, it's the last 20-30 minutes that does all the heavy lifting. That, and a final Promethean image which I thought was a clever play on the novel's subtitle. 2 years 10 months ago

See all comments

Friends

Login to see which of your friends have seen this movie!