Frankenstein

I read the book years ago, and loved it. I also saw the Kenneth Brannagh version and was pleased. So I was wondering what new things this version would bring me. I bought the DVD because of Sutherland and Harris. And when I watched it, I recognized the story, of course. But yet, I was really entertained. it was new, it was above all beautiful. The cinematography was very good, sharp en sinister. A real new movie. This was good stuff. And I will see this once again. 176 minutes is a long way to watch. I planned it over two evenings but went straight to the end and midnight. This means something. I recommend it for an entertaining night.

Since I was a kid, I am fascinated for the romantic and dramatic tale of Frankenstein, and I have probably seen all the adaptations released in Brazil. This television version was a nice surprise for me: although unnecessary, I liked very much since it is not a simple remake. The locations are wonderful, and the film is very well produced. I liked also the dramatic performance of the unknown Luke Goss in the role of the needy creature; his character clearly expresses the need to be loved and to love. Donald Sutherland is great as usual, and Alec Newman does not disappoint in the role of the scientist Viktor Frankenstein. The DVD released in Brazil has 154 minutes running time, and when I see in IMDb that in USA the DVD has 204 min and in UK, 268 min, I dare to say that the edition in Brazil was perfect, with a fluent continuity. I really do not know which parts were cut, but certainly they were not important. But I noted the minor participation of Julie Delpy in very few scenes. Last but not the least, it is very weird that many favorable reviews are made by users with only one review issued in IMDb. This movie is good and does not need this type of apparently fake promotion. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein"

I liked this version. Sutherland and Hurt were good in this. In the beginning the acting seemed kind of bad but Alex Newman did a great job in this. For me, he really saved the beginning. I never saw the DeNero version so I can't say anything about it but I did see the Boris version and I did read the book and I have to say that it did impress me.Hurt was good, Goss was good, Sutherland was good,but Newman really made this movie I think. As for people saying that the dialog was annoying, it was annoying in the book too. Slow scenes were the same in the book. All in all, it was a good screening of the book. I liked having an articulate creature, it was how I pictured in while reading it. If the other actors had better acting in it, It would have raised the 'out of 10' rating for me.

This version of Frankenstein is by far the best and truest version of the classic book written by Mary Shelley; both in content and intent. A true feeling for the period that this book was written in can be felt in this film. This is not the "Hollywood-let's re-write the story-Kennith Brannagh, DeNero-version" and it is not overacted. It is the story as it was meant to be told; with all the pathos, depth and empathy that it was intended to inspire, as well as horror. I am impressed by Alec Newman,(dune) once again, and Luke Goss gives an outstanding performance. Sutherland and Hurt, as always, shine. Finally, there is a more-than-watchable version of the first true science fiction story ever written.

A Hallmark production, "Frankenstein" (2004) is the most literary faithful filmic version of the oft-done tragedy. Luke Goss looks more like the novel's depiction of the creature (with long black hair and white teeth) than Boris Karloff in the Universal classics or Robert De Niro in the 1994 version, but he's also too handsome in a dark gothic way, resembling Type O Negative's Peter Steele. The creature in the 1994 version didn't have hair and was a more gruesome depiction, which fits Victor's description of the creature in the book as "hideous" (then, again, Victor was extremely biased against his creation).

While this rendition and the 1994 one are the most faithful to Shelley's book, they each omit parts and change certain things. For instance, both omit Victor's traveling to Scotland and, later, Ireland, which was a good call. Actually, I think both versions improve the story in different ways. When Victor and the creature finally meet and have a discussion in the high country, this one has them meet at a ruined castle, which is an excellent deviation. The 1994 version has them talk at a remote glacial dwelling, which is closer to what occurs in the novel.

My favorite part is when the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family, unbeknownst to them. It helps the viewer get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight. In the book and the 1994 version all sympathy is pretty much lost eventually while this rendition paints the creature more sympathetically. The locket sequence is lame though, but that was a weak point of the novel as well.

Alec Newman is intense and brooding as Victor Frankenstein and I could relate to his work obsessions carried out in his nightgown (or whatever). Any problems with the flick are due to translating a convoluted 19th century gothic horror classic to modern cinema.

With almost an hour more to play with compared to the 1994 version, this one has the luxury of taking its time and is the better for it IMHO. The 1994 movie, by contrast, is overly manic and melodramatic because it tried to cram too much into two hours.

The film runs 2 hours, 56 minutes, and was shot in Slovakia and Norway.

GRADE: B+