Leofwine_draca FRANKENSTEIN is a TV miniseries retelling of the Mary Shelley novel, made by Hallmark Entertainment. I do enjoy these Hallmark shows, which are invariably well-cast and good-lucking; certainly the production values in this one are sumptuous indeed, especially considering it was made for TV. The Arctic locations look fantastic, and the European location work really adds to the atmosphere of the piece.In scope and tone, this is closely aligned to Branagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, although it's not as good as that movie. For a start, the cast is less interesting, although there are exceptions. I can't see why Donald Sutherland, for instance, is wasted in the thankless role of the ship's captain, or why Luke Goss makes so little an impact as the Creature. William Hurt and Julie Delpy are similarly underutilised in relatively minor roles, while a hell of a lot is put on the shoulders of Alec Newman, playing Frankenstein. Newman is okay, but hardly great; surely this part cries out for a well-established talent.This miniseries boasts some decent cinematography, but it's an entirely bloodless affair, and somehow the drama is never as exciting as it should be. It doesn't help that the Creature looks like a tired goth, or maybe Lord Byron after a particularly heavy night on the booze. FRANKENSTEIN is acceptable and deserves kudos for capturing the right "feel" of the novel, but I'd rather watch the Branagh adaptation again than this one.

CountVladDracula For a very long time I was on a quest to find a faithful film adaptation of Frankenstein that followed the plot and physical appearance of the creature from the novel. Just last week a friend suggested I check out the 2004 version of Frankenstein starring Luke Goss as the creature. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised to find that it would be Hallmark that finally made a version of Frankenstein that actually followed the novel. The film from 1994 actually called "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" was not as faithful as the title would imply. It had the creature bald with a distorted eye and speaking like a stroke victim. It also had Elizabeth's heart torn out of her chest and then brought back in the style of the Frankenstein creature. For years after that I had searched for a version of Frankenstein that had a creature portrayed the way he is described in the novel. First let us begin with the popular idea of the Frankenstein monster. Everyone imagines the creature as a simple minded, green skinned creature with a flat topped head, and bolts in his neck. I don't understand the popularity of the "simple minded" Frankenstein creature. I know it was popularized over eighty years ago now thanks to Boris Karloff but think about it. In the actual novel the creature figured out how to dress himself (and that he'd need clothes!) in a matter of moments after his "birth". He learned to read and write (or remembered it) in a matter of months. That's equatable to an eleven-month-old baby with an adult reading level. He could read, write, was as articulate as his creator, if not even more so. He even had a favorite work of literature (Paradise lost). That's not a simple minded creature. That's a super genius in the making. I'd like to see more intelligent incarnations of the Frankenstein creature but not pretentious (as he was pretentious in the film Van Helsing). For good intelligent incarnations of the creature check out the 2004 Hallmark version of Frankenstein staring Luke Goss, Ultrasylvania (web comic / graphic novel), and perhaps to a lesser extent (because he still moves and talks like a stroke victim) the Robert de Niro version. Not only did this version (The Hallmark version from 2004 starring Luke Goss as the creature) have the creature physically look like, talk like, and move like the literary version of the creature but it also restored one of the novel's secondary morals. Everyone remembers that Frankenstein teaches you not to tamper with nature but most people forget that it also had the creature learn (a bit too late) that revenge was not the answer and that revenge would bring him no peace. In my opinion this was as important a message as that of not tampering with nature. So why do so many film versions leave this aspect of the story out all together? Why are only the inaccurate or incomplete versions remembered? It's not fair that this version of Frankenstein is almost entirely obscure.Here's where I am going to get a little nitpicky. It's a very good adaptation. The biggest changes deal with Victor's mother's death (in the novel she dies before he sees lightning strike a tree, not after). Also later in the story another body (after Elizabeth's death) is blamed on the creature in a village but it could be that someone died by coincidence that the creature (happening to be there) got blamed for it. Oh, and the creature's eyes. They're blue in this and yellow in the book. And Victor's father lives but seems to be going crazy. In the novel I thought he committed suicide. But these are petty details. This version is probably the most faithful I've seen. And the creature is VERY accurate.The creature is the best thing about this film. If you want to see the creature the way Mary Shelley intended him to be, watch this version of Frankenstein. Admittedly there are a few dull parts and some parts that felt unnecessary as filler and dragged on a bit but this was the most faithful adaptation of the book and is unfortunately highly under-rated. Luke Goss is simply the best portrayal of the creature I have ever seen.

omhn Frankenstein Review (2004) This movie is about a young man named Victor Frankenstein who lived in Switzerland and went to college in Germany. One of his professors taught him a lot, however the longer he was at college the more interested he became in trying to make human life.The first part of the movie starts off talking about his family as well as his friends. Than when he gets older it shows him making a person. They call the person that he makes "the Monster." It turns out that his creation turns against him and everyone else in the village because no one accepts him. He hurts a lot of people and Victor does the best he can to put an end to his creatures destruction.The setting took place in Switzerland and in Germany. I thought that the clothes of the actors fit the time and the setting in which this story took place (late 1700's). I thought that the acting was very good. I was quite impressed with Victor; he played his part very well. I thought that the rest of the acting was good as well.I thought that the dialogue in this movie was good as well it definitely fit the time period in which they lived. At certain points in this movie I thought that I was actually a part of the conversation that was taking place. The action sequences were so much better than other versions of Frankenstein. I thought that they seemed a lot more realistic as well as more intense than the other movies. At times you could really feel the emotion of the characters in the movie.I've personally never really been a fan of Frankenstein, however even though I didn't think the story is very good, the acting in this movie kept my attention. If you like the story of Frankenstein this is definitely something that you want to watch at least once.

rooprect There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who have read Frankenstein and those who haven't. I urge everyone to join the ranks of the former. Mary Shelly's novel is one of the greatest tales since Faust, full of philosophy, theology and studies of the human condition. It ain't about a green lummox with electricians boots and bolts through his neck, lumbering through villages as if he's murderously constipated.In this adaptation, we get the original intent of the author. The creature is a protagonist, not a villain. He is intelligent, well spoken, driven by the same thing that drives most of us: a desire to love & be loved. And like any newborn child, he doesn't know the rules of society and morality, although he learns quickly.If you expect to see a horror flick, you'll be very disappointed. There aren't many scares in this movie, and there's a lot of dialogue which may make things seem slow. In fact, a cursory glance at comments tells me that most of the negative opinions were from students who were forced to watch this for a lit class, and they thought it was too long. Sure. But that's how books are, kids. Overall, this was a pretty faithful re-telling.In particular, I was thrilled to see that this film stayed true to the book by relating the whole story through flashbacks told to the Arctic ship captain (excellently played by Donald Sutherland). This creates an "envelope" around the tale which adds suspense and chills, literally. Another highlight was the showdown between the creature and his creator. This was brilliantly done, shot in a superb mountaintop setting in Slovakia, and the acting talents of both Goss & Newman really came through.Other scenes were not as impressive, and at times you might find yourself thinking it's a bit melodramatic. But at least it didn't sink into Kenneth Branagh territory ;) A small criticism I have is that I didn't quite understand the importance of William Hurt's character who was invented solely for this film (not in the book). His presence did add something to the production, but at the same time it introduced a new sub-theme that may have taken away from the original focus. Eh, who cares, Hurt did a good job and I found myself wishing he had more scenes.Oh, one big gripe I have is that they suddenly made the creature kill at random, even mangling poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits. Wassup wit dat? It's like Mary Shelley meets Glenn Close. lol. I guess the filmmakers added that to wake up the audience a bit.Luke Goss (the creature) is the shining star of this production. It's odd, because in the DVD interviews he admits to never having read the book; yet his portrayal was right on ...truly the best depiction of the creature I've ever seen, conveying both ferocity and intellect while eliciting our sympathies. For that, I think this is a great work which, I would hope, might tear down the goofy image of the monster we've lived with for the last 80 years.