Not the best film in the world, but still enjoyable
22 January 2002
I'm not sure why some people are so vicious towards this film. Granted, its not the best in its field, but was more satisfying than others. Personally I liked Kenneth Branagh as Victor Frankenstein. Robert de Niro should have had more screen time, but the look and style of his make-up was a welcome relief from the flat-head, bolt-thru-the-neck Hollywood monster. The breathtaking scenery matched the novel perfectly, and the monster was shown to have a certain amount of dexterity (as in the novel) instead of a lumbering hulk.

There have been comparisons with Dracula (1992), and while Dracula had some gorgeous colours, I found it to be overlong and had too many mis-cast actors. I thought Kenneth Branagh and Helena Bonham-Carter were more believable in their parts as a couple than Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were in Dracula. Dracula had Keanu Reeves, Frankenstein has Robert De Niro, nuff said.

The first half hour of the film was a bit awkward, but the highpoint of the first half for me was the scene where the creature is given life. The novel is very brief in the scene where the creature is bought to life, whereas movie adaptations seem to put a large amount of focus onto it. This film does too, and in this one its quite elaborate, but its incredibly satisfying. Kenneth Branagh was perfect in this scene as he desperately tried to bring his creation to life. So overall not a perfect film, but enjoyable for fans of the novel.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed