Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Wow! Such a good movie.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This is such a bad movie!! Why does Kenneth Branagh keep doing this? He's very gifted but seems to take things too far. And this is a prime example. I couldn't watch the whole thing. At first it was like watching the proverbial train wreck. But then I started telling myself that my time was worth more than this. My goal was to plug through it but ended up writing this instead. And it was nominated? I wonder by whom...

Another adaptation of the classic with great Gothic ambiance, an epic story (although it takes a little while at first to establish the introduction) and convincing performances. The scenery and costumes are stunning. Kenneth Branagh performs and plays the role of Dr. Victor Frankenstein; Robert De Niro has charisma as the Monster and Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth, the bride of Frankenstein - I never thought I'd say it - is very beautiful in this film. I think, however, that Branagh could have been more restrained in his acting and on the use of the rotating camera, or at least not to rotate it so quickly; moreover, during the end of the film the special effects did not convince me, taking a little of the immersion. Anyway, for those who like cinema with story and emotion I strongly recommend this movie; I think it's underrated, but also cannot give it more than 7/10.

When the young Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", she would be far from imagining the impact that it would have. There are literally dozens of films that address that story but cinema never succeeded in making a film that reproduce original novel. This film is the one that comes closest to the book, although it also presents changes. Many are very positive but some of them have no obvious purpose and should have been avoided. For example, the character Clerval was so ignored that he virtually became a prop in the plot, as well as the majority of Frankenstein's family. Even so, its a meritorious effort and worthy of congratulations. Despite this, the public is often mistaken in the judgment that makes of this film. As the name "Frankenstein" is strongly associated with horror, public is led to think that this is just another horror film when its actually a drama. The deception leads some public, who seeks horror, to be disappointed with what they find but, let me stress this, this problem lies in the public and not in the film. We should try to understand a movie for what it is, not what we expected to find.In addition to this effort to be faithful to the book, the film presents excellent filming locations, although some sets may have been better and more faithful to the period in which the story was placed. Frankenstein House hall, for example, with that huge staircase, absurdly disagrees with the location chosen for the exteriors. Costumes, on the other hand, seem more acceptable and historically accurate. The cast is very strong. Of course, with so many stars, a lot of them didn't have the proper time to shine. Kenneth Branagh is very good in the lead, although sometimes theatrical and unnatural; Tom Hulce was mediocre in the role of Clerval because his character was very mistreated by the writer; Ian Holm and Helena Bonham Carter were OK; John Cleese, Robert Hardy and Trevyn McDowell fulfilled but didn't delight us; Robert De Niro did the most striking work in a melodramatic, intense, powerful and psychological portrait of a character who, in other films, was merely an instrument of horror.Despite these merits, the film has a big flaw: it's too melodramatic, full of presumption, self-importance and aspirations of greatness. The emphatic dialogues and attitudes are very theatrical. Soundtrack is magnificent but its too insistent, permanent and likes to appear too much. The movie is very good but it's far from being an epic, and the problem lies in the fact that it looks like it wanted to be. And no one really likes excessive vanity.

Nothing like the book so why call it Mary Shelley's? Victor Frankenstein is primarily a chemist and keeps the process of animating a body secret. There are no dead body parts and there is no electricity in the books. Rather it is suggestive that the body is created by Victor and the animation process is a chemical process rather than electrical process... although it does not say for certain how the 'monster' is constructed.This film owes more to early Hollywood and Hammer than it does to Mary Shelley. Also my impression of Victor Frankenstein in the books is that he is an incredibly private person. The 'monster' is created by himself over a long period of time and in deep secrecy and after its creation Victor becomes even more withdrawn in himself. I felt that this film does not portray Victor in this light. By all means keep the film's original title as Frankenstein as a homage to the films of old but to make arrogant claims that it resembles the book suggests to me that the director or the studio officials who decided to change the name to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein have not read the book but instead have relied on watching the earlier film versions of the story.