User reviews

While many people seem to scorn this film, I found it wonderfully enjoyable. Like the great Orson Welles, He stars in, and directs, many of his movies. This one in particular shows some of his more excentric, if not marketable, passions in filmmaking that make movie buffs and connaisseurs alike enjoy this stylized and emotional film.

Yes, it is melodramatic. Yes, the acting is often over the top. But what many critics of this film fail to recognize is that this is precisly the point. By staying very true to the source material(until the Elizabeth thing) and the significant changes that WERE made are clear evidence of this. The book was melodramatic. What Kenneth Branagh does here is stay true to the spirit of the classic gothic novel. The great close-ups define the characters, and through them you can understand them. Do not mistake stylization for poor film-making, because this is a wonderfully made and presented film, that if understood captivates you from the first spoken words(a quote from Mary Shelly, setting up the stylization) to the last frame.

Know what you're getting into, a passionatly made film about what drives one to both excel and what drives one to madness, and the dangers of excess beyond reason. If you have read the book, regardless of whether you liked it or not,see this movie. You will love what they have retained, and will embrace what they've changed. this is not a film(not a movie, a film) for everyone. But for those who are willing to have an open mind, it is pure bliss!

When this first came out I thought it was a masterpiece. I was also a young man and had not experienced too many films yet. While this is still probably the best Frankenstein film IMO, in a recent viewing I was shocked to find that I really didn't hold it as high of regard as I did. Branaghs acting is way over the too and quite ridiculous even. I saw many things in the plot lines that are what I call lazy screenplay writing. Certain events were so forced by the charachters unrealistic actions that a lot of this film seemed quite silly. Deniro is really the main reason to watch the film. His performance was still quite good IMO. All in all this was a pleasant memory that didn't hold water for me personally with a more mature mindset. Still some great stuff in the film though.

This version is overly melodramatic in an effort to romanticize Shelly's novel and allow for the many actors a chance to put forth their acting chops. The direction and acting remind me of older movies like 1939s Wuthering Heights where It was all about actors chewing the scenery helped with an epic soundtrack crescendoing to punctuate moments. This is what reminded me why I like the original B&W version so much, it was so minimal and stark for its day. When I saw it on a large screen several years ago, it really scared me and I'd seen it on TV many many times before. Something about the silence at certain moments in the film created eery and shocking scenes that much "more". As the creature In Branagh's version, De Niro's NY accent made me chuckle at times and HB Carter chose to ham it up as Elizabeth ( and in this version becomes the bride of the creature as well!! Yikes) I think there were too many famous named actor's to please, so they made each character an important enough role to extend this to nearly two and a half hours long (Maybe longer). Now that's Self involved story telling. Sorry, I know this will be an unpopular review, but it's honest.

... Francis Coppola's hit with Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), and which sank quickly at the theaters for not following in its parent's footsteps--Coppola had other projects, tried to give it to another director, and ended up with one of Kenneth Branagh's first few attempts at non-Shakespeare movies, which Coppola later tried to distance himself from. It's also one of the most omnipresent of the Sony/Columbia Orphans, just about every-darn-where on streaming (if your service has "Gattaca", "Fifth Element", "Resident Evil", "Last Action Hero", "Seventh Voyage of Sinbad" and "Dracula", rest assured this one will be nearby), and I'd thought I should finally get around to streaming it just to be curious about why it hadn't lived up to its pedigree in the theaters.

It's actually not bad, now that we know what to expect: Branagh's since moved away from Shakespeare (after "Hamlet", he could never get another one back in theaters), and now specializes in gloriously overproduced period epics with costume/production-design abandon. Back in 1994, we didn't think of Ken as "the director of Marvel's Thor and Disney's live-action Cinderella", but now that we do, it's a full-tilt exercise in period-production budget. Like Coppola's film, the idea was to (claim to) go back and explore the themes of the original novel, and Ken's performance and Frank Darabont's script does a good job with that, showing Victor Frankenstein as a privileged rich-kid medical student destroying everything for his one personal obsession, in a Regency-steampunk lab powered by electric eels instead of Universal-Horror lightning. Robert DeNiro is intended to play the monster, and does a good job with the book's idea of a verbose creature who questions his own existence, but he's playing it a little too DeNiro--With just a few stitch-scars and a big cloak, he comes off not so much as an unearthly creation, but more like the escaped criminal that Pip met at the beginning of "Great Expectations".

It's good viewing if you take the movie at its own face value--There's one scene that deliberately tries to copy Coppola's abstract, dreamlike "Dracula" style, presumably to give in to Francis's complaints, and it sticks out from the rest of the movie like a sore thumb. The movie goes at Branagh's own wildly enthusiastic cosplay pace, and like his Hamlet movie, Ken's default style seems to be, when in doubt, shoot the scene Big. The story's attempt to top itself at every plot point does start going a little overwrought by the climax, but we realize that while he may not have made a Coppola followup, what he's done is create the world's most expensive Hammer film...Which is not always a bad thing.

I nearly spit out my teeth when I saw how low Frankenstein (94) score was. This film is quite simply spectacular! It goes in the same category as From Hell, they are both too sophisticated and beautiful to be JUST horror films. The cleverness of this film and its sheer radiance must throw some people off. Robert De Niro is the creature! De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own. De Niro's performance brings out genuine pity, sorrow, and most importantly, fear. Kenneth Branagh has always added a bit of class to his films, and his version of Frankenstein is no different. A visually brilliant triumph as a director.

I remember watching this 1994 interpretation of the classic Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" story. And I do remember it as being a good movie back then. Oddly enough, then I never actually got around to watching it again before now in 2022.

Now, I have never actually read the novel, so I don't know how true to the source material this 1994 movie from writers Steph Lady and Frank Darabont is. But I will say that it does make for good entertainment. The story is nicely paced and takes the audience along on a visually and narratively interesting journey. Sure, we are all familiar with the story in smaller or greater detail, so no reason to flesh that out - pardon the pun.

Director and lead actor Kenneth Branagh did a good job with bringing the storyline and script to life on the screen. Sure, the movie is just oozing with archetypical early 1990s tropes for a horror movie such as this, but it does work out nicely enough for the movie.

Something that impressed me back then and still does impress today is the cast ensemble that they had for the movie. The movie is starring Robert De Niro, Kenneth Brannagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, John Cleese and Tom Hulce, to mention but a few of the talents here.

Visually then the movie is good. It never goes overboard with gore or gruesome details, so you are not in for 123 minutes of blood and gore. The visual effects and make-up prosthetics were good and realistic, and I do like the approach they had opted for to go with for the creature - you know, Frankenstein's monster, as played by Robert De Niro.

Despite being from 1994, then "Frankenstein" is a movie that is well-worth sitting down to watch, even now 28 years later.

My rating of "Frankenstein" lands on a seven out of ten stars.

The revival of Universals monsters ended here. Coppollas Dracula was an enormous success, so this came only two years later. And you had the mediocre Wolf with Jack Nicholson around the same time. The story is well known, don't mess with nature. I've never read Mary Shelley, so don't know how faitful Frank Darabount was when he wrote the script. BUT what could have been a great movie, falls apart in the seams with some very odd editing. Branagh, who both directs and plays Frankenstein bops around like a Formula 1 driver to start the story. First at the North Pole, then back to Frankenstein was a child, then grownup, then as a loudmouth student. We meet John Cleese as a very experimental scientist, who becomes Frankensteins mentor. And in what I thought was a flashback, we see him get killed. But it's not a flashback, it's the catalyst for Frankenstein to create a monster from his mentors killer. Very messy editing. In the end, the movie is a mix of omd Frankenstein and (IMO) the much better Bride of Frankenstein. Robert De Niro shows again why he was the best actor of his generation as the lonenly monster. Would be interesting to know how much of the editing is Brannagh, and how much was the execs wanted to shorten down the run time.

Victor Frankenstein is the son of a famous doctor who watches his mother die in labour with his younger brother. As an idealistic young man he travels to university to study to become a great doctor. However he brings with him non-scientific teachings he has researched into life and the influence of electric currents. His belief is supported by shadowy lecturer Dr Waldeman and Frankenstein continues his work and brings a man back to life using parts of other men. Realising what he has done, Frankenstein leaves his monster to die but the creature learns fast and wants revenge for his creation.

I have seen far too many monster movies that all blur together and share the same focus on effects and gore than story or character. So when this was promoted as being close to the original material, dark and more of a story than a horror I was looking forward to watching it. For the most part it sort of works but it's main flaw runs all the way through it like a stick of rock – it's far too worthy. Or at least it thinks it is. The film has a constant swell of dramatic music that is only ever seconds away and it really makes the film feel grander and more serious than it really is. The film isn't scary but that wasn't a problem to me – it just has all these big worthy dialogue scenes with sudden pauses (up comes the music) and then lines. It doesn't work and the film feels heavy and even dull as a result.

This is never more evident than in Branagh's own performance. He is far too dashing and too much of a young man gone wrong to be believed. If he'd played it a little less worthy he would have been more of a human and less a cardboard type. De Niro really tries hard and did well for me. He may be stuck with a creature but it has been developed past the cliché (but not far enough perhaps). I did feel for him and it was all De Niro's doing. Carter is miscast both before and after – far to light and modern for the role, Briers is OK but Cleese is way to miscast. First of all the fact that he only appears half in shadows and when he opens his mouth the music comes up doesn't help, but it didn't feel like him. Quinn is a good cameo but the majority of the cast seem to have bought into the whole `worthy' thing and are dulled as a result.

Overall the film is worth watching because it is a good telling of the classic tale and De Niro does a good job of showing us the basic human behind the combined dead body parts. If only Branagh hadn't been overwhelmed by the sheer importance of what he thought he was doing and had let the film flow and bit more and given in less to worthy music, acting and directing.

In 1992 we got a romanticized version of Dracula. It seems that its success brought two like-minded movies in 1994: "Wolf" and "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Neither of them reached the acclaim level of "Bram Stokers' Dracula."

"Frankenstein" seemed too rushed. It was a big expensive production with a more than adequate budget. It had the look and feel as if they had to cut down a three hour movie to two. Things developed too quickly which made the key characters seem as though they were overly emotional and driven without a substantial motive.

All the proper elements were there for the movie to be as good as "Dracula": the budget, the cast, the set, and the story. If they could've slowed things down just a tad then the movie would've been so much better.

In 1794, Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) is obsessed with reaching the North Pole. His ship is frozen in and he encounters Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) followed by his monster (Robert De Niro). It's back in 1773 Geneva. His father Baron Frankenstein (Ian Holm) brings home the orphan Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) whom Victor loves as they grow up together. After the death of his mother, he vows to eliminate death. In 1793, he's studying in Ingolstadt under the tutelage of Professor Waldman (John Cleese) and befriends Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce). Waldman is experimenting with electricity inspired by the Chinese. When Waldman dies, Victor steals his notes and tries to create life despite Waldman's warnings.

This is more of a costume drama than a horror. There is a fundamental problem with director Kenneth Branagh's vision. It feels like a lifeless melodrama. He's better off to cut out much of the beginning. Most of it is unnecessary other than introducing Helena Bonham Carter and having his mother die. The monster should be the heart of this movie but it takes too long to get there. The grotesque is so close but Branagh holds back. Instead, he's concentrating on making a broad melodrama. This is the shameful part because the experiment and the monster is well done. The overblown melodrama actually fits that part of the movie. The inclusion of the original ice voyage is again unnecessary but at least, it's something different.

One of Branagh's more maligned works, though for the life of me I can't see why. Sticking closer to the book than to any preconcieved notions of Boris Karloff (perhaps that's why), this injects true horror into the story of a medical student who brings a corpse to life. If you don't like melodrama then maybe it's not the thing for you, but this deserves a far better reputation than it has.

KENNETH BRANAGH gives dramatic Shakespearean treatment to Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, playing every scene as if he's in a Greek tragedy of tremendous depth. His over-the-top histrionics become increasingly overwhelming as the film goes on and on, badly needing some tightening in story structure. Instead, it comes across vividly in bits and pieces, stitched together much the way the monster itself was created by Victor Frankenstein.

There are genuinely frightful moments with creepiness made more effective by Patrick Doyle's score, but there are equally moments that serve no purpose in the story and are there simply for shock effect, such as the mother's death during childbirth.

ROBERT DiNIRO has to suffer beneath extravagantly scarred make-up but does a creditable job as the creature. Despite the realistic make-up, he's never as scary as Boris Karloff in the original Universal film nor does he ever overact the role the way Branagh does with Victor Frankenstein.

HELENA BONHAM CARTER is fine as Elizabeth and has some shocking moments toward the film's climax. Visually the film has some majestic photography and the special effects for the fire scenes are both realistic and gruesome.

This may be a more faithful rendering of the "Frankenstein" tale, but due to clumsy story structure and length, it's never tight enough to produce the kind of thrills it was after.

I recently had to read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for my literature class and I loved it! So I was really excited to watch the movie that is supposed to be 'true to the original novel'. Let me tell you that I was QUITE disappointed. This film is nothing like the original novel. Kenneth Branaugh should be ashamed. This is probably his second worst film (after the musical version of Loves, Labours, Lost). He completely changed the ending, and it was terrible. If you're ever planning on watching the movie so that you don't have to for a class, DON'T! And just so you know, I do love the original 1931 version of Frankenstein, even though it is nothing like the novel either.

Ask a random group of people for a list of the most recognizable faces of horror, and chances are the name "Frankenstein" will appear somewhat on that list. And why shouldn't it? Since the creation of the characters near 200 years ago, Frankenstein (or more correctly "Frankenstein's monster") has become an icon of not only horror, but of popular culture in general. With dozens of film adaptations, spin- off works, comics, video games and other examples in just about every other conceivable medium, the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster is the stuff of legend!

One of the more peculiar entries in this vast franchise however has to be director Kenneth Branagh's hotly debated and polarizing 1994 adaptation "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Conceived of as a sort-of sibling to Francis Ford Coppola's popular 90's "Dracula" feature, the film was subject to some behind-the-scenes drama and was met with mixed reception from critics and fans alike. But beyond all of the drama and second guessing, does the film itself work? Beyond the he-said, she-said... is it a good movie when it all comes down to it?

...pretty much. It's not the best of the adaptations based around the story, and believe me, it has problems a plenty. But I can't say it was a failure, and if you asked, I'd have to admit that when it comes to "Frankenstein" on screen... it's pretty good.

We all know the story. A brilliant doctor who is trying to find the cure to death itself. The monster he creates in his attempts to discover the key to creating life. And the tragedy to follow. What sets this particular take on the tale apart is the sheer thrills of director Branagh's (who also stars) visual direction and the wide and varied cast that populates the story. And for the most part, they are the highlights here.

Branagh's got a keen visual sense, this much is evident from his vast array of work. Everything from his Shakespeare adaptations to even his more mainstream work like the Marvel Studios flick "Thor" oozes his kinetic and hyper-real style. And that's on full-display here. I get the feeling that Branagh is trying to mold the film to reflect the manic excitement of Victor himself, and I do think it's an interesting new way to present the story. With flowing camera-work, tilted angles and wild editing, you really get the feeling of how obsessed Frankenstein is in his attempts to create life and how it all implodes around him due to the unforeseen circumstances of his experiments. It's almost shot more akin to a high-stakes action picture than a tale of Gothic horror, but it works for the most part. Although it can be an occasional detriment during the slower scenes of character and story development. Something co-writer Frank Darabont has bemoaned in some interviews, as he viewed the film as a slower and more dramatic character piece. Still, I think that Branagh's wild eye meshes well with the story being told. He just needs to stop drinking so much caffeine during the slower and more deliberate scenes!

The cast is a great deal of fun. Branagh makes for a wonderfully crazed new Victor with the giddiness and the excitement of a schoolboy who simply cannot deal with personal tragedy. Helena Bonham Carter makes for a fantastic Elizabeth, despite often being relegated to the sidelines and you really do root for her and Victor's relationship. Classic actor Tom Hulce is a blast as Victor's best friend. And supporting roles by the likes of John Cleese and Ian Holm are all exceptionally well cast.

Then there's the monster. Oh boy. Look, I love Robert De Niro, and I'm sure if I wasn't as aware of him as I am that I'd like his version of the monster even more... but there's no getting around it. When you watch the film, you're not seeing a tragic figure of a monster who feels betrayed and abandoned. You're seeing Robert De Niro under heavy makeup. He's trying his hardest and it's a decent performance, but I can't help but feel it's a major miscast because it's so distracting and once or twice it will take you out of the movie.

Beyond that, the production is top notch. Patrick Doyle's dark score is haunting and tragic, and is among my favorites of the decade. Roger Pratt's cinematography is absolutely stunning and is lush and wild and dreary and all things that the story call for. Magnificent work. Tim Harvey and James Acheson deliver a splendid one-two punch with their work in production and costume design, giving everything a realistic but stylish flair to augment Victor's crazed energy. (Don't get me started on Victor's fantastic laboratory set!) And all others involved are on-game in the best of ways.

The only major aspect of the production I must question is the editing, which in conjunction with Branagh's deranged visuals causes many a problem and is where the film loses some points. This is just a psychotically edited movie. Yes, I understand the purpose behind it... but it feels disjointed and scattershot as a result, with far too many scenes beginning and ending on a whim without proper establishment or payoff, and some cutting that feels sloppy due to the editor and Branagh trying to fit in as many angles and shots as possible. It's a big problem here and I get the feeling that it's where the film will lose a lot of people.

Still, for my money, the excellent cast and visually arresting direction trump these issues for the most part. It may have benefited from more deliberate pacing and a different choice of monster... but it's not a bad film for these issues. Merely a troubled one.

And so, I'm giving "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" a pretty-good 7 out of 10. Worth seeing for fans looking for a slightly different spin on the iconic classic.

This interpretation of the story "Frankenstein", with personalities like Kenneth Brannagh,Ian Holmes,Helena-Bonham Carter and John Cleese amongst others is so incredible in its execution and dramatic flare.

John Cleese,especially,makes a very memorable part as the mysterious mentor Professor Waldman,which shows Frankenstein the secrets of Life.

And not to forget Kenneth Brannaghs characterization of the manic, desperate and not too forget intense Dr. Victor Frankenstein is completely without competition.

It's in this part Brannaghs sense of Dramatical flare and theatrical intensity really comes into its right, and manages to put the madness of Frankenstein into an incredible sharp relief.

You get an understanding of why Frankenstein does what he does.. The Death of his mother,the want to beat Death, all of these factors formed Frankenstein up to the moment where he creates and reanimates the Monster

Ah, The Monster.. In all the excitement I almost forget Robert De Niro's excellent rendition of the monster. In his characterization the monster isn't just a lifeless and soulless being,but a humane being with wishes,desires,wants and lusts..

He feels and experiences everything with such a strenght and intensity as noone really can describe. And he tries to adapt to a world which is completely hostile to his existence, even his Father he learns will not love him or know him.

The Monster is like a child, trying to cope with emotions and feelings much stronger than anything we can imagine or percieve. And maybe it is that which makes the Monster so reckognizable?. Because he is us, and we are him?