Don't listen to the negative reviews

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

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.

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.

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.