Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A decent, if not perfect adaptation of the Novel, is more true to the material than any other. It does take some liberties, but it is worth watching.

This is such a bad movie!! Why does Kenneth Branagh keep doing this? He's very gifted but seems to take things too far. And this is a prime example. I couldn't watch the whole thing. At first it was like watching the proverbial train wreck. But then I started telling myself that my time was worth more than this. My goal was to plug through it but ended up writing this instead. And it was nominated? I wonder by whom...

I certainly thought this movie got close to being good, especially near the end. Fr the most part however, it wasn't that memorable. I really do like Robert DeNiro as Frankenstein's monster. I didn't recognize him at all! The movie starts with Victor Frankenstein going to the North Pole. Wait, I thought this was a Frankenstein movie, not a Santa Claus movie! We see all the events that led up to this.It seems to take too long for the monster to appear. I have never read the original novel, but I did read this play version and it seems to be pretty faithful. The full title IS "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein". For some reason, I thought it was just called "Frankenstein". It definitely has its good points and I guess if you're bored, you can watch it. It's just not too good. **1/2

Everything in this film is overkill. The blood, running camera blocking, the operatic musical score, the screaming, fire, ice, and the ultimate overkill, death itself. I thought that the usage of a bit of excess in the earlier "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was simply perfect, but what do filmmakers do when they succeed? Try to improve, and while that's admirable, in most cases, they fail miserably. For every "Sound of Music", there's a star, and for every "Deer Hunter", there's a" Heaven's Gate". Even Mel Brooks, brilliantly spoofing the monster legend with "Young Frankenstein", became ridiculously silly decades later with "Dracula, Dead and Loving It". So it goes to follow that with this monster follow up that may leave you with a migraine. I stand by this, because I saw it and "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in the the after when they were first released in the theater.From the swirling cameras to frenzied special effects, this reminded me of why the second "Indiana Jones" film got very mixed reviews. It fails to realize that sometimes, less is more, and don't try to improve on practical perfection unless you are sure that indeed (without ego), it is perfection. This really does have some good things going for it, but a mixture of moods and energies are its failings. There's no denying that both Kenneth Branaugh and Robert DeNiro tried their very best, but the script doesn't flow easily, and too much attention is focused on trying to give DeNiro's monster constant sympathy. Helena Bonham Carter, as Branaugh's life long love, spends much time as the traditional fragile heroine, only coming to life, ironically, when her character is dead. Tom Hulce plays a buffoon medical student, while Ian Holm and Cherie Lunghi are touching as Frankenstein's parents. However, as the mother, Lunghi looks more like his sister, much time scattered past between his childhood and adulthood.