Sam_Youno
We've all seen De Niro, mucho times, as a good cop, a bad cop, a good crook, a bad crook and other, similar roles. Watching him as the Monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a real treat. He remains recognizably Bobby De Niro, but he manages to bring to the part nuances of emotion---and aggression---that are utterly different from his other work, before and since.Alas, the rest of the film (plot, script, acting) is exactly the sort of thing that has put us to sleep in innumerable mawkish Victorian romances and melodramas. With some careful pick-and-choosing, and despite a good dash of Hollywood, the plot is acceptably close to Mary Shelley's novel, but creating a compelling cinematic version of the novel is a different matter. De Niro has, maybe, 20 minutes onscreen. 'Tain't enough. Best line: "Don't bother to scream."Add one full ratings point for Kenneth Branagh's earnest effort to avoid giving this movie a feel-good ending. Subtract half a point for failing. Add back the half-point for casting John Cleese. Final sum: 5 points.
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
pete36
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 !
Rainey Dawn
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
AD
