Frankenstein Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x688 | 5950.67 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x404 | 1503.92 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x332 | 824.07 MiB | divx | |
|
320x180 | 278.32 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x180 | 320.07 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
It's Alive.
Be warned.
Based on Mary Shelly's novel, the hair-raising movie tells the sad story of Victor Frankenstein (Kenneth Brannagh), a promising young scientist. The doctor was so devastated by his mother's death during childbirth that he became obsessed with the idea of bringing the deceased back to life, unaware of the consequences of his actions. The result of his experiment with the remains of the corpse and electricity was a simple, seemingly harmless creature (Robert De Niro) which, however, turned into a wrathful and vindictive monster after his ''father'' abandoned him. Dr. Frankenstein wished he had never created him!
| John Cleese | Professor Waldman |
| Robert De Niro | The Creature |
| Tom Hulce | Henry Clerval |
| Ian Holm | Baron Frankenstein |
| Kenneth Branagh | Victor Frankenstein |
| Aidan Quinn | Captain Robert Walton |
| Cherie Lunghi | Victor's Mother |
| Mark Hadfield | Felix |
| Helena Bonham Carter | Elizabeth |
| Richard Briers | Grandfather |
| Robert Hardy | Professor Krempe |
| Celia Imrie | Mrs. Moritz |
| Trevyn McDowell | Justine |
| Gerard Horan | Claude |
| Joanna Roth | Marie |
| Kenneth Branagh |
6.00 out of 10 (8180 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Good but flawed
posted on 19 Jul 2009I went into this with very few expectations, simply because I didn't know what to expect. I must say it turned out to be a decent flick, but rather hit-and-miss in places.The plot is a classic one, and it is handled very well here. The message is made quite obvious, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, I do wish that they would have been more subtle about it. It also suffers from some very bad writing, with many very poor lines. Still, it's an interesting account of the story.The actors are, for the most part, very good. Branagh does a great job on both sides of the camera, but he really shines here as an actor. He does a fantastic job as Victor. As for DeNiro, I'm somewhat torn. He gave a great performance as the Creature, however I'm not sure that I liked how the character was portrayed. He was a very uneven character, who seemed to change his entire mindset on the drop of a dime. Perhaps this was intentional, but if so it wasn't handled very well.One thing that I rarely comment on about of movie is the score, though I feel the need to mention it here. A good, though generic, score, I was very annoyed at how intrusive it could be. It seemed very out of place most of the time.Finally, the pacing was very uneven. It moved along at a good clip most of the time, but was almost unbearably slow in the middle.Despite it's flaws, this is a pretty good film. I enjoyed it, and it's recommended by me.7/10
good but not great
posted on 01 Jul 2009Despite the fact that Kenneth Branagh set out to present a more accurate representation of the Mary Shelley book, he fails to do so in this film, and gives us a compromised 'hollywood' story. True, it follows the story much better than other Frankenstein movies made, but there are still vital parts of the story which were either completely left out or not well represented (in particular, the cottage scene is very underdeveloped). Vital to the development of the monster's character were the various times he was socially ostracized and treated so poorly that he was driven to his painful anger. More than anything Frankenstein is a tragic drama, and not horror in any way. This movie does not develop the story well enough to convey it.
What was Brannagh on when he made this?
posted on 28 Jun 2009I cannot begin to express how awful this movie is. The entire thing feels like a train gone out of control. Brannagh uses bizarre camera moves, slams on the gas for some scenes and floors the brake for others, making the movie feel very disjointed and very stop and go. Unnecessary usage of the fish-eye lens also shows up for no apparent reason at least once to my recollection.Brannagh completely ignores the entire idea of exposition and just throws things at the audience and hopes we don't question them. Examples - Where did Victor get what had to be about 100 gallons of amniotic fluid? And how did he keep them viable while accumulating them? What was the point of lightning experiment? (It seems thrown out there for no real reason.) How does Victor get to the Creature's location of the mountaintop while keeping his hair perfectly coiffed? How did he climb that mountain in such a short amount of time? If he never intended to use it again, why did he move his equipment back to the house, and why have an elaborate pulley system already installed for it? How did he get another 100 gallons of amniotic fluid when he flips out and decides to resurrect Elizabeth? Since there was no real damage to Elizabeth's head, why did he stitch her face up? Also, not really a question, but the electric eels took me three viewings to understand what they were supposed to be; very poor explanation of a key plot element. Also, the climax with Elizabeth being reanimated, and subsequently igniting herself, is easily one of the dumbest scenes ever filmed.Just a bad movie all around. The only thing that is watchable is the Creature's speech in the ice cave, but I can never sit through the movie to get to that point. DeNiro is completely wasted with a godawful script and director. Had Francis Ford Coppola directed this, maybe it could have been better executed, along the lines of his "Dracula" film, two years earlier. As it is, DeNiro's performance is the only saving grace to this mess, and really, after the ice cave speech, DeNiro's performance is boiled down to angry grumbles and bled of any semblance of the intellect he shows in the ice cave speech. A complete waste of America's greatest actor.Also, though John Cleese's role is not intended to be humorous, he seems like he stepped right out of a Monty Python sketch. (The monkey's hand doesn't help.) Ian Holm is wasted as well, as is Tom Hulce, who seemed to think he was still playing Mozart. Overall, an awful bit of drek that has a few flashes of quality provided by DeNiro, but the movie ultimately collapses under the weight of it's own stupidity and frantic, out-of-control-train pace.
great warning spoilers
posted on 10 Jun 2009i like to save up money and buy a dvd once and a while after hearing about it or seeing it,a while ago i bought bram stokers dracula what a waste of time, it was cheap and didn't stick 2 the original story but it was hailed. a while later i saw frankenstein i saw a few good names and it was cheap so i bought it. i think it's the best movie i've seen in yonks,dark,violent,good plot and the end was thrilling.i enjoyed the execution of justine and loved the rip(can't spoil it too much). but i ask my dad about if he'd seen it and he said when it came out it was a flop. BUY IT BUY IT BUY IT
who do you root for?
posted on 17 May 2009this is one of the stickiest contaversies i have ever seen in a movie. typically, there's two sides: the good guys and the bad guys. i can choose who i want to root for based on the actions of the hero-be he or she the protagonist or the antagonist. But in this movie there's a thin line between good and evil and the heroes are stepping all over it. they are both good and they are both evil. And what's more, they are both human, as shocking as that is to realize-only one looks more human and the other behaves more human (you be the judge which is which)so who do you root for? whose side do you take? the human in the "monster", or the "monster" in the human? i'm sure i don't know.
not great as it should have been but still pretty good
posted on 26 Apr 2009what can i say about this film which hasn't already been said.....not much. I first saw this on televisiion when i was twelve and thought it was cool how they made it new and more serious. I have however just finished reading the book which is excellent and now we are watching it again in class. After the first 30 minutes of the film, my friend whispers to me that this movie has terrible acting. Later I correct him. The acting isn't bad, there simply is no character development. For example, in the beginning of the film when Victor's mother dies, we as the audience are suppose to feel something but we don't. She had what, a total of 2 minutes of screen time. I think brannagh just rushed through things just to get to the creature which is expertly played by De Niro. Brannagh must have been worried about the wide release and how he'd have to keep the audience interested. Therefore he missed out some good things and made the movie worse. The parts with the creature are done extremely well and the overall theme and feeling of the movie are perfect. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10 just because of de niro.
An Embarrassment
posted on 20 Apr 2009When Cinemafantastique interviewed Kenneth Branagh on his recently-released version of Frankenstein, the writer asked Branagh to describe his viewpoint, his thematic slant on the story. Quite a natural question for a film maker to be asked, as the notions of theme and point of view are not optional, they are mandatory. A director must decide beforehand on the ideas he wishes to set forth, and craft the means to set them forth clearly. When dealing with a classic, oft-filmed work, he must choose a new slant, and exploit themes that have not been emphasized before (at least, in quite that way), if his work is to be at all original.Branagh's breezy response was something on the order of, "I didn't really have a theme in mind, I just wanted to tell a good story."This is precisely why Branagh's version fails: is an unanchored, misguided mess. Herewith is a barely coherent hash of styles, a series of boneheaded choices (a snotty Helena B. Carter as the "liberated" Elizabeth Frankenstein), a tangle of hanging threads -- beautiful clothes with no one in them; beautiful sets that form a backdrop to utter nonsense.And it is dreadfully miscast. Branagh's ego trip as Dr. Frankenstein aside, the worst performance of all is that of Robert DiNiro as his creature. In this role, DiNiro proves that Pauline Kael was right all along. For years, Ms. Kael kept telling us that this mediocre talent was considered a great actor just because everyone said he was. In other words, he had been in the right place at the right time, and had stumbled into his undeserved reputation by pure chance. (Check out the way he sleeps through his role in Casino.) The spectacle of Frankenstein's creature mumbling in that repellent, thick New Yorkese is really one of the sorriest moments in all of filmdom -- there is simply no excuse for such a thing. Did anyone bother to tell him the story is set in Switzerland? I saw this movie in New York, at an East Side theater, and the audience was giggling nervously every time DiNiro opened his mouth. Why nervously? Because they "know" DiNiro is a "great" actor... Because they were embarrassed, pure and simple.And they should have been. Branagh's desire to "tell a good story," while arrogantly disregarding the most basic elements of storytelling, quite naturally produced the opposite effect. In short, it produced an embarrassment.
Depressing, overly artsy, sorry piece of work
posted on 18 Mar 2009This movie was easily on par with Bram Stoker's Dracula as one of the sorriest adaptations of classic literature to make it to the screen. Far too lavish in design and severely lacking in feeling, this is truly not the movie to try to unwind to.The one exception was De Niro, who was only marginally melodramatic in his role. Everything else was predictable and simply unpleasant. It was like a train wreck that you foresaw and simply couldn't put an end to (without hitting the stop button, that is!).Please heed my warning: Leave this one on the shelf.
Hardly Mary Shelley's and weakly detailed
posted on 09 Mar 2009Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of the original "Frankenstein" novel was undoubtedly a new approach compared to all others. The idea of moralities within reanimation and the prevention of death especially added to the depth and logic of the film. Unfortunately, the process of production had weakly supported this element and the plot itself was left loosely without proper composition.Although the outline of the film was emotionally powerful, the cuts were amateur and the development of the story was unconvincing. Much of the acting, dialog, and sudden situations were too distracting towards the plot. For instance, it is obvious that it was intended for Victor Frankenstein's obsession towards reanimation and sustaining life was a result of his mother's death, but there was lack of evidence in any scene to actually support this thesis in a realistic manner. The same can be said for the creature, whose motivation and anger against society was extremely demonstrated in his violent actions without a tangible cause for his behavior.Achieving compassion from the audience towards the characters is one of the most essential factors in storytelling. I can see Branagh's attempts for drawing sympathy for both Frankenstein and his creature, but their personalities as a result of a traumatic experience is greatly doubtful considering their ambiguous backgrounds, which was very frustrating to watch at my part. Under these circumstances, the whole concept of the film remains unbelievable and difficult to accept as a highly sophisticated story that it really is.A distinctive method in storytelling is clearly needed to support a more convincing plot for this film. Adjusting the story by cutting out irrelevant scenes and expanding the story by adding specific details in the chain of events can be considered as a quick solution to this problem as well.Despite my criticism towards the main characters, I did however find that Elizabeth's character was in fact convincing and logical. The scenes that involved her and Victor were highly emotional and dramatic. Perhaps these scenes were even the highest points of the film. They can be interpreted as highlights; the fact that each time Victor and Elizabeth meet the true state of the current situation seems to emerge, helping the viewers better understand the characters. Judging from this viewpoint, Elizabeth's character was the most crucial to this films coherence.From my perspective, the development of the plot was awfully rushed to make a simple and yet profound point against the many issues brought up in this film. The heavy use of monologue is one of my proofs for this conclusion. I have many regrets, however I do believe there is a lesson in this story worth learning about. I strongly recommend this film in this sense, but not as a source of critical entertainment. I would suggest for all viewers to lower any expectations prior to watching this film.
Seriously, what were they thinking?
posted on 28 Feb 2009Wow, this film is so inaccurate on so many levels. I read the book in 12th grade, and I can't say I liked the story, but that is not my beef with this movie. Why call it MARY SHELLY'S Frankenstein if its not based on her novel? The inclusion of the author's name implies more accuracy, not less.Okay, why is Frankenstein dancing on the mountains with his half-sister and a lightening pole? He was a medical student because of his mothers death, not a random science enthusiast. His mother also died from illness, not childbirth. Frankenstein's friend Henry was from his hometown, not his school. And why did Kenneth Branagh feel the need to slick himself up in goo for the monster-making scene? Also, there was no need for the sex scene, unless it was just to "spice up" the movie, as Frankenstein and Elizabeth never had a chance to consummate their marriage. And what was with the whole trial-gone-awry!?? It was supposed to be an unfair trail, not a mob-gone-mad and throwing the girl off a cliff. Why was the monster going to secret meetings in ice caves? But the MOST ridiculous part was when Frankenstein tried to regenerate Elizabeth. She's DEAD and should stay that way! Why could he not make the one girl with the perfectly fine body come to life, but magically when he hacks off her head and stick's on his lovers, she sparks to life. And was it necessary to shave half her head in the process? The longer this movie went on, the more i just wanted to laugh. It went so far off base, it shouldn't have even been called Frankenstein, let alone dared to include the author's name as if she'd given personal approval. Unless of course, he knew it was so far removed, people wouldn't recognize and confuse it with Bob Smith's Frankenstein.
Frankenstein...as disturbing as it is well-acted
posted on 29 Jan 2009As I stated above, this movie was disturbing. I had never seen it before, but my mother picked out of the 5.99 bin at best buy because she loved it so much. I watched it and now I am as hooked as she is. While there were a few obligatory corny bits ("I will have my revenge...Frankenstein!") it was still spectacular. Robert De Niro conveyed the part of a tortured soul so well. When you watch the movie, you know that this man was once a well-respected scientist who was one of the most intelligent at the university, and he has been reduced to a wandering madman with no memories who is not even shown basic common courtesies. When he is so utterly consumed by his quest for revenge, he kills Elizabeth, then tries to take her as his own and she still ends up dead, a single act resulting in the death of both Frankenstein and his creation. The movie was dark, gory, and beautiful all at the same time. I have new respect for both Kenneth Brannagh and Robert De Niro.
Hollywood's Frankenstein - some SPOILERS
posted on 24 Dec 2008I have absolutely no clue why it was allowed for this movie to be called "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein. If you go read the book, you will realize how incredibly inferior this movie is to the actual text. Robert DeNiro you say? Don't be fooled! His character barely speaks. In the novel, the creature is very eloquent when he speaks to Victor. In the movie, he can barely move his lips. Also, the character of Victor in the movie shows nothing of the internal struggle that goes on in the novel. He is made into a half-Hollywood hero: when the creature comes to life, he goes chasing after it with an axe LOL And that is just a small example of how this movie does no justice to the novel. If you have read the book, and you are expecting to see it recreated for the screen, you are badly mistaken! If on the other hand you wanna see a typical Hollywood movie, go for it!
Not what I expected....
posted on 24 Dec 2008I read the book, which I liked very much, before I saw the movie and I am very sad to say that I was very much disappointed...It wasn't what I expected... The movie is nothing like the book, which is excellent, so if any of you want to know the real story of Frankenstein dedicate some time to read the book and don't bother watching the movie!!! Mary Shelley communicates great messages through her book, which unfortunately are lost or twisted in the movie. Of course, I should say that Robert DeNiro's performance as the monster was splendid. It was one of his best roles. He was so good, that occasionally I forgot that Robert DeNiro was the monster. He is perfectly adapted to the role.
He's my father...
posted on 24 Nov 2008Not knowing what to expect, I was fascinated by this movie. It offered a great story, and finale which lacks in most movies.I loved the Lon Chaney "Frankenstein", and loved this one too! DeNiro was interestingly cast as the monster. Branagh as Dr. Frankenstein was the most engaging of all, being devastated by deaths all around him and wanting to stop death. It's really a story of playing God, but also having the ability and intelligence to do it ---- and to have the intelligence to see it was not the greatest decision ever made. It's just a love story, bottom line.
Wouldn't we want to bring someone back from the dead so we can spend more time with them? Branagh never got the credit he deserved for this movie. He directed a brilliant story that could have gone anywhere - yet he kept it within the story of love. Kudos Mr. Branagh!!
Nothing like the book
posted on 15 Nov 2008Although it bears only a passing similarity to the original novel, it's still an interesting film and worth a look if you enjoy such adaptations. Watch this only as entertainment. If you're trying to avoid reading the book for english class then don't bother, as there are such drastic differences between the book and the film that they could almost be considered two different stories.
Although truer to Shelley than most, Frankenstein has a fatal flaw
posted on 12 Nov 2008When adapting a great literary work for the screen, Kenneth Branagh can usually be counted upon to be as true as possible to the spirit, and even the letter, of the original. It is, therefore, no great surprise that his version of _Mary Shelley's Frankenstein_ is much truer to the author's work than any prior rendition. His Creature, portrayed movingly by the great Robert De Niro, is so much closer to Shelley's than Boris Karloff's bolt-necked, green-faced monster that it makes the latter even more of a cartoon than it originally was. Most of the differences between Branagh's film and Shelley's novel are insignificant. However, there is one plot alteration that, while it appears minor on the surface, betrays one of the themes of the first science fiction novel ever written. In the film, when the Creature flees Frankenstein's laboratory, the scientist pursues him with an axe, presumably to kill him. In the novel, it is the scientist who flees his creation, leaving the new life to fend for itself as best it can. The reason this plot alteration is significant is because Shelley wrote the novel, in part, to illustrate what could happen if scientists deny responsibility for their work. It must be recalled that she began the novel during a summer she spent with two great -- but very different -- men. Percy Shelley, whom she would later marry, saw man as being basically good and held great hope for the advances he foresaw as the results of the fledgling sciences. Their companion that summer, George Gordon, Lord Byron, saw man as being, if not wholly evil, at least the greatest source of evil in the universe. Therefore, his prognosis of what could come from man was considerably darker than Percy Shelley's. Mary Shelley's book portrays a scientist who is neither wholly good nor wholly evil. He is a man driven by a true desire to help mankind, as well as by intellectual vanity. But his motives, both altruistic and vain, are rendered meaningless by his actions. When he realizes his Creature lives, he does not stay with it to ensure that its life is used beneficially. Nor does he allow his realization that he has committed a fatal error to guide him to undo his work before it becomes the undoing of everyone close to him. He runs, and by doing so, he actively refuses to take any responsibility for his scientific work. He sets the work in motion and turns his back on it, allowing it to wreak havoc. But Branagh's Frankenstein pursues the Creature with an axe, thereby attempting to take responsibility for his actions. He is unable to find the Creature, but his failure is logistic, not moral. So while Branagh's film is much closer to Shelley's vision than any before had been, it falls short of being completely true to the message -- and the warning -- inherent in the novel: scientists cannot pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake and then loose their discoveries on a world unprepared to assimilate them and use them wisely. Whether they accept it or not, they ARE responsible for their discoveries and creations and for what is made of them.
An overseen masterpiece!
posted on 09 Nov 2008If you look the rating here and read some comments you will probably think that this movie is just one of those horror flicks.BUT!! I think everyone should see this movie and make his own opinion, because it has so much good elements, with a very strong and human message, that would be: It is the nature of every human being, to want someone by his side.Even if he (Frankenstein, or in general: anybody!) looks like an ugly monster he still feels the need for someone who loves him. (To all who don't get why Frankenstein was made to look so "bad": It just underlines the contrast between how he looks and how he is for real.So much about the not recognized message! Why wasn't it recognized? The movie is made in a bit unusual style. From the sets, to the costumes and sometimes also the acting. But in the end all this isn't that bad, it would ruin the movie!If you can handle this, then Frankenstein is a movie you should definitely see! A movie with an very interesting look to the 19th century, with lots of perfect (and disturbing) parts (SPOILER: The wedding night; when Victors leaves Elizabeth alone and goes to look for "the creature". When we see it above her and later how it pulls out her heart and shows that (still beating) to Victor. - one of the most disturbing scenes, not only of this movie! END SPOILERS).For it's beautiful message presented in the most disturbing way, a 10/10. If you have the chance get this movie and see for yourself!
Mary Shelley is rolling in her grave...
posted on 31 Oct 2008this movie is simply awful. i was forced to watch this piece of fecal matter cinema while taking an English analysis and interpretation class. we were focusing on Mary Shelley's brilliant, terrifying, and splendid novel, and our professor was introducing us to different modern interpretations.why they called this movie "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein, i don't know, since it veers off so wildly from the original book, it will make any literature fan's head spin. i know, even the original "Frankenstein" film wasn't close to the book at all, but at least it was done stylistically well and was merely "based" on the book rather than being touted as "the closest adaptation" of the book like this one was.everything about this movie is bad, except the costumes and makeup. the script is awful, much of the dialogue laughable if nothing else, and even the most "interesting" scenes only inspire boredom. this film has such a great cast: de Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, and director Branaugh...but all fail miserably here...mostly thanks to this monster of a script.take my advice. stay away. read the book. the original 1818 version. rent the original James Whale masterpiece of the delightful parody "Young Frankenstein" by Mel Brooks. this creature is better left dead.
The Best Version Of FRANKENSTEIN that I have Ever Seen!
posted on 13 Oct 2008I have seen the old black and white version of FRANKENSTEIN and I have seen the HAMMER HORROR version of FRANKENSTEIN, which was titled The Curse Of Frankenstein, and though they are both excellent, neither are as good as MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN!We have Victor Frankenstein, who is going to college to study science. He is a very ambitions man, and he wants to study what no school will dare teach: Bringing The Dead, Back To Life! So he meets a man who works at this college, who is curious about the same things that Victor is, but for some reason, he refuses to let Victor take it too far. Then, when this man dies, there is nobody to stop Victor from taking his experiments to the next level! This is a MUST SEE for any Frankenstein fans. For those of you who know the story of Frankenstein through the old Universal Monster Movies, this film takes the story of FRANKENSTEIN, and the story of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, and combines them. But with a slightly different and slightly better ending. There is a lot more violence in this film then in the old Black and White versions, but it follows the same story line. Robert De Niro gives an excellent performance as the monster. I couldn't believe it was him on the screen. I have never seen him act out a part like this before. But he pulled it off beautifully, and nobody could have done it better. You gotta check this flick out, trust me, you won't regret it!
The love affair between Branagh the director and Branagh the actor...
posted on 31 Jul 2009Kenneth Branagh has so much talent he doesn't know where to utilize it best. Hint: costumed horror epics are hardly the place. This is a highly unpleasant, indifferent take on the infamous story of Victorian-age madman who brings a corpse to life. Lumpy, overlong, both unsettling AND boring, Branagh doesn't even try to keep this thing on track. His own performance as the insane doctor is frenetic and uneven, and, puzzlingly, self-admiring. Robert De Niro is affecting as the monster, but some of his violent acts clearly step over the line into poor taste. Handsomely-produced but not eerie, just sour.*1/2 from ****