Review of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) by Dustin M — 06 Dec 2009

What's Frankenstein without a creature with bolts in his neck? What's Frankenstein without dark, eerie castles? What's Frankenstein without a small German town chasing after the Monster with torches? What's Frankenstein without a hunch-backed assistant? The answer is: the novel Mary Shelley wrote and published back in 1918.

It's one of my favorite books, mostly because of all of the thematic elements contained in the Gothic horror story. The 1994 adaptation of the novel by director Kenneth Branagh stays true to the original novel and maintains most of the thematic elements.

It should be said that this is no masterpiece, and at times it is very flawed. Robert De Niro is good but not great as the Monster, as is Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. The best actor in this film, I think, is John Cleese, who plays an almost-unrecognizable scientist who worked on the same tasks that Frankenstein would come to work on.

I believe this is when the film is at its best: the research and experiments that Victor conducts. All the crude science gives the movie a dark, repulsive feel, which goes along perfectly with the message of the movie and novel.

The actual scenes of the Monster killing people and going about his dastardly ways may be disappointing to some because it's not very scary and nothing like the previous Frankenstein movies people had seen.

Being a Shelley fan, I like that, but I do admit that the Karloff one back in 1931 just worked better as a movie, no matter how aged it may be. That's why I think many people who didn't read the book may not like this movie.

But I think people who did read it will appreciate the faithfulness. It should be said that my least favorite parts were towards the end, when the movie took more liberties. And I also didn't like the editing in this movie, particularly toward the beginning.

The tone changed too fast, in my humble opinion. I think this is worth a look, but don't expect a classic.