jacobjohntaylor1
This a great movie. It a remake. 6.4 is underrating it. This movie is a must see. It is based on one of the best horror books ever. And it is one of the best horror movies ever. This movie has great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It the story of a scientist who takes part from different dead bodies and puts them together. He brings it to life. This movie is scary then The Exorcist. Frankenstein (1931) is scarier. But still this is very scary. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. 1994 version is better. But still is very good movie. It one of closest versions to the book. This movie is a must see.
extantabstractxx
If you were disappointed with how loosely the 1931 Frankenstein followed Shelly's famous novel, you will be pleased with the 2004 TV miniseries version. It follows the plot of the book almost exactly, and I believe the most pleasing and refreshing detail is that the monster becomes extremely literate in much the same way as in the book, by spying on a foreign girl's education, then by finding and reading various novels, one of which being Paradise Lost.The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive
It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.
Lollipop4598
While it is true that this film is a lot like the book, it just does not make cinematic sense( or any other sort of sense either. It is painful to watch. The creature is just not that ugly. ve seen people look worse after a weekend bender. WHY exactly does everyone fear him as though he was shedding his skin? And the genius Viktor is so totally stupid that he just can't help pissing off the murderous creature and then putting his loved ones conveniently in its path and running off somewhere so that it can have an easy uninterrupted go of it. The creature isn't that convincing. Its only real argument is that it had to kill people no matter how harmless because he was angry at other people. It never explains just why it never harmed anyone that actually mocked it, just people that did absolutely nothing to it whatsoever. The most silly part is where Viktor runs after a beggar(even though the beggar is half of the creatures size and obviously human)can conveniently walk through a door and kill her without breaking a sweat. It is also inexplicable why Viktor could simply make sure that the creatures mate was unable to reproduce instead of torching her in front of the monster. Its rather predictable what would happen next. Viktor even conveniently screams NOOOOOOOOOO instead of shooting at it so that it could run away and seek vengeance. Please do not watch without a barf bag handy.
vassal_handmaiden
If you have actually read Frankenstein and despaired of ever seeing a good portrayal of the Creature on screen, then you MUST see this version of Mary Shelley's work. Finally, Hallmark has produced a relatively faithful version (changes, such as increased time for the love-story between Victor and Elizabeth, are reasonable and do not alter the original tenor of the work) with an excellent cast. Luke Goss' Creature is eloquent and highly sympathetic, with a beautiful, plaintive voice that is utterly convincing--as is proper. To demonstrate: my father has never read the story and is a big fan of Branagh's wretched film (don't get me wrong, I like Ken, just not that film), but he watched this version with me and exclaimed about halfway through: ''Wow, I never thought of the Monster's problem like that. Frankenstein is really horrible! Why doesn't he just do what the Creature asks? I mean, his life sucks and he just wants some happiness. Frankenstein is such a jerk!'' If the original message of the story can reach my father, then anyone who loves the original will enjoy this film all the more. William Hurt is very enjoyable as always, and Alec Newman does a fine job making himself less and less appealing (and yet more and more interesting) as the story progresses. (It's interesting how his unusual facial features appear as distorted as the Creature's on certain occasions.) All-in-all, a comprehensive and beautiful adaptation, almost sure to please anyone with a love of the book.
AD
