Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Eric Stevenson I certainly thought this movie got close to being good, especially near the end. Fr the most part however, it wasn't that memorable. I really do like Robert DeNiro as Frankenstein's monster. I didn't recognize him at all! The movie starts with Victor Frankenstein going to the North Pole. Wait, I thought this was a Frankenstein movie, not a Santa Claus movie! We see all the events that led up to this.It seems to take too long for the monster to appear. I have never read the original novel, but I did read this play version and it seems to be pretty faithful. The full title IS "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein". For some reason, I thought it was just called "Frankenstein". It definitely has its good points and I guess if you're bored, you can watch it. It's just not too good. **1/2

Leofwine_draca 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.

chazwyman Not sure what was on Branagh's mind here, but casting De Nero as the monster was way off beam, and the make-up didn't really work. When you know the face of the young Don Corleoni us under that mask you are just waiting for the next smart remark. Thankfully he avoided the excessively philosophically thinking, eloquent and educated monster that was utterly incredible in the original book, but the one moment of reflection between him and Frankenstein in the ice-cave simply did not ring true. There was a poor understanding of the big screen. And some ridiculously comic moments that were too staged. See Bonham Carter running across the lawn to meet Frankie's horse, just makes you ask why he did not ride up to the house? Then after the monster has harvested the field of turnips, the camera pans to De Nero's face in - to let us all know who did it - just looks so pantomime and silly. But the worst thing is that Branagh seemed to use any excuse to get his shirt off. This was a six-pack too far.

GusF After "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Curse of Frankenstein" and "The Horror of Frankenstein", this is the fourth adaptation of the 1818 Mary Shelley novel that I have seen in the last ten months, notwithstanding the numerous sequels to the first two films. Of those four, this is the most faithful to the novel - which, as with "Dracula", I have never actually read - as well as the most faithful version ever made. This is an absolutely brilliant take on the material. After the 1957 and 1931 films (both of which are referenced several times), it is my third favourite "Frankenstein" film. The film was not well received critically or very successful commercially in the US, which led to the joke at the time that Mary Shelley wanted her name taken off of it which, given its aforementioned fidelity to the source material, is more than a little ironic.As with "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing", Kenneth Branagh excels as both an actor and a director and has rapidly become one of my favourites in each category. His Victor Frankenstein, a character who was based on Shelley's brilliant but often unstable and uncaring husband Percy, is a good and decent man who is undone by his own fanaticism. His attempts to resurrect the dead are motivated by the noblest of intentions. He hopes to allow humanity to cheat death so that people never again have to lose loved ones, an obsession which begins after the tragic death of his mother in childbirth, something which nicely plays into Victor's later problems with "giving birth" himself. Branagh plays the title character brilliantly, creating a tragic figure who elicited my sympathy in spite of his extremely misguided and unwise experiments. On the directing side of things, the film looks beautiful. The sets and the scenery are gorgeous and the more whimsical scenes at the beginning of the film serve as an excellent contrast to the horror elements later on. This is best demonstrated by two scenes which feature dancing: one lovely one towards the beginning in which Victor and Elizabeth are seen at a ball and another, macabre one in which they dance around his laboratory after she has been resurrected. The framework scenes involving Captain Walton's Arctic expedition are extremely effective as his fanaticism offers a nice contrast to Victor's. Unlike Victor, however, Walton learned his lesson before it was too late. I don't know whether or not it is true but, according to IMDb, the producer Francis Ford Coppola wanted Branagh to cut the first half an hour of the film but he refused. This was certainly for the best as these scenes are crucial to understanding Victor's character as well as providing very good contrasts as I mentioned before. I'm not very familiar with Coppola's body of work but I find it hard to believe that he could have failed to understand that. There were not many actors or directors, living or dead, whom I would describe as artists but Branagh is certainly one of them.Another thing that I love about Branagh's films is his great eye for casting, notwithstanding Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton in "Much Ado About Nothing". Much like his "father," the film's take on the Creature is a tragic, misunderstood figure. He starts off as gentle and kind but becomes a killer after he is mistreated and abused. His scene with the blind grandfather, the only person who is kind to him, is one of the best in the film. He vows revenge on Frankenstein for abandoning him to the very cruel world of 1793. In line with the novel, this Creature is far more articulate and intelligent than most versions and Robert De Niro is excellent in the role. However, I have to say that I've always found Victor to be a far more interesting character than his creation and this film is no exception. Helena Bonham Carter is extremely strong as Victor's eventual wife Elizabeth, a very intelligent and kind young woman who is murdered by the vengeful Creature on her wedding night. Her love for Victor survives her resurrection but it is not strong enough to prevent her from committing suicide after she was repulsed by her own appearance and its similarity to the Creature's. She and Branagh, who began a relationship during the film, have great chemistry. The film has a very strong supporting cast overall, including Ian Holm, Branagh's "mascot" Richard Briers, a surprisingly good John Cleese in one of his only completely serious roles, Tom Hulce (who was cast in preference to Branagh as Mozart in "Amadeus", though he clearly didn't hold a grudge!), Cherie Lunghi, Celia Imrie and Aidan Quinn.Overall, this is a sorely underrated film which provides a fascinating and thought-provoking take on one of the most widely adapted novels of the 19th Century.