Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

People are voting emotionally.

Lack of good storyline.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

As much as I love Kenneth Branagh as an actor, most of the movies he directed leave quite a lot to be desired. This one is no exception : a near-hysterical version of the classic Frankenstein tale.Apparently the movie follows quite closely the original book by Mary Shelley (hence the title) but instead of a classic horror movie you get a version that most likely seems to be directed by Michael Bay. The swirling camera, the super fast editing, actors who do not talk but but shout the whole time as if they're on a stage, it all results in a head pain-inducing out-of-control carousel of flashy images and sounds.Francis Coppola, who was the producer, wasn't at all pleased with the finished product and even demanded to edit out the first half hour. Branagh didn't comply (he had better listened to the master)and the movie was released under The Zoetrope badge, instead of "Frans Ford Coppola presents". Whenever that happens it means that Coppola simply disavowed the movie as a whole.Branagh did go on to direct other movies with varying results including some (minor) successes like his monumental version of "Hamlet" and the swordandsorcery tale "Thor". But the rest of his directorial efforts (except his very first one "Henry V") is best to be forgotten. But he remains a brilliant actor !

Be Warned…that spoilers lie herein. Branagh's popular spin on the classic work of Gothic literature may stick fairly close to the origins of the story (certainly closer than the Karloff/Cushing adaptations) but it stills throws in far too many changes for my liking; we get a plague of cholera, Victor's mother dying in childbirth, Waldman getting stabbed, Elizabeth returning to life – I can understand why some of the changes, especially the latter, were made, in order to add more drama into what is a part-travelogue, part-letter driven narrative – but others serve no purpose I can think of. For instance, Clerval survives the film, but to what effect? None that I can think of.The film has had a large amount of money spent on it, and the costumes, scenery, make up, and effects are all quite wonderful, aided nicely by an effectively sweeping Gothic score. The problem with this movie, then, lies in the characters and performances of the characters in the film. Although the movie is packed with British thespians, only the two leading men contribute efforts of any worth. Branagh is good, yes, but we're used to him being excellent, so being only good is a letdown. De Niro is great and throws an unusual spin on the emotional character of the Creature; I don't think anyone else could have been quite as convincing as he is here, and the scenes of his "birth" are the most moving in the film. I especially like the handling of the creature and the blind hermit (played by Richard Briers), the best bit of the film, without a doubt, but still changes have been made to the original tale (where did the children come from?).Other noted characters – such as Cheri Lunghi and Ian Holm – are so far in the background that they barely register as people, just moving puppets instead. Holm is OTT but even that is swept aside by the orchestra and the bombast of the production. Tom Hulce is particularly bad as laughing-boy Clerval, his character poorly-sketched and inane, a far cry from the imaginative lover of nature portrayed in Shelley's story. John Cleese and Robert Hardy have fun in very minor parts as university lecturers but that's about it. Oh, and then there's Helena Bonham Carter; I usually like this unusual actress, but she's quite terrible in her early role here, and totally unconvincing as happy-go-lucky Elizabeth. Far more effective is her unsettling appearance as the deformed Bride, a bad-taste addition to the book which transforms Victor from a misguided saviour of mankind to a cold and ruthless killer who thinks nothing of sawing his fiancee's head clean off in order to serve his own foul purposes. How could Branagh and co. make such a profound error of judgement in order to throw in a few more ghoulish shocks into their movie? Horrific, maybe, but totally out of character for the earnest scientist.I actually preferred BRAM STOKER'S Dracula to this movie, as it contained more Gothic flavour and atmosphere than this somewhat lacklustre offering, watchable but far from memorable, a fact which is even more galling considering the calibre of those involved.

This is a pretty interesting film version of the story. In a roundabout way, it's similar to the Universal Classics because The Monster or Creature is created by Frankenstein and becomes abandoned and lonely for "someone like him" - a bride - but that's about as far as the similarities go. The Creature himself is more similar in looks to the classic Hammer Horror "Frankenstein" with Christopher Lee than any of the Universal Horror Classic 'Monsters' (Karloff, Chaney, Lugosi & Strange).As far as the story goes Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) has a good take on the tale but not nearly as good as Universal or Hammer Horror films. That's just my opinion. If you do not compare films (film companies) then you have a pretty darn good monster movie here that is worth a watch if you like this sorta film.6.5/10