It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

I'm (as most people) familiar with Frankenstein because of the 1931 Horror flick Frankenstein and to my shame I must admit I like it. Shame because this movie also shows that Hollywoods arrogance was already there in 1931 by taking someones story and maim it completely for commercial purposes. Because it's a very simple horror entertainment story i never had the urge to read the book.Then I come across the trailer of this film and I immediately wanted to see the movie, Some people gave this movie very bad remarks. Those are the people that, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the true story of Frankenstein.200 years after the book is written we haven't learned much. People still like to play god, the makers of the atom bomb for instance, and you can only hope that they have suffered in their lives like Victor Frankenstein did. "we never intended to use them". Why make them then??? Did you people really were that stupid that you don't understand that when you have something like an atom-bomb there will be somebody that would use it? (as they did).There are also a lot of people in this world who think (like Frankenstein) they have the right to take lives of other human beings just because they are treated bad in their past. There are also a lot of people in this world (the lefties) who think you should understand a creature like Frankenstein, but don't understand that "people" like Frankenstein will kill them with a smile on their face when they feel like it. Therefore I'm glad that in the film is stated, "does a person who takes innocent lives deserve understanding?" on the other hand, do people have the right to misjudge people just because they are different?These are very good questions and therefore i think this movie should be obligatory on Highschools all over the world and should be discussed afterwards so that also people who don't understand this movie can understand and hopefully are as much impressed with this movie as I was. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.

Rescued out in the middle of a blizzard, a scientist recounts for the crew of his saviours how his past experiments on instilling life to the dead resulted in the creation of a being made from dead body parts hounded him and his family and forcing him to stop it.Overall this one was quite the troublesome and incredibly problematic mini-series that isn't all that enjoyable. The biggest problem here is the fact of it being so obviously and utterly intent on following the original novel, which in turn results in a pace that it just mind-numbingly bland and flat-out boring. Continuously spouting off completely banal methods for scientific processes and bland religious debates that end before they start are featured so prominently in the first half leaves this one will such a dull, lagging pace that it stumbles over itself before even starting by getting a pace so bland and impossible to rile up any kind of interest here that regardless of how well it sets up the ill- mannered nature of his obsession the lack of interest is such that it doesn't really offer much of a chance to get going until he brings the creature to life so late in the first half. This here is mainly due to how closely this one manages to follow the storyline of the book and getting everything set-up so intently that there's almost no horror at all in this one, even during the second half when the creature escapes out into the wild, and as those are all about him as the sympathetic force in an unknown landscape there's little about it that generates any kind of fear or suspense at his actions with it spending the majority of the time doing little of any interest.with this one so fascinated with the bland story lines about his obsession and the search throughout the woods. While this indeed holds back the first half with some overly-long scenes that just go nowhere, the second half does manage to go for a few more enjoyable bits of action namely from his confrontation at the church ruins and the confrontation at his cabin in the woods. Even beyond these points, there's still a lot wrong with the second half that's even more egregious than the first, with the sympathetic wailing of the monster inspiring derision more than any kind of actual fear, the consequences of his actions against the creature unleashing nothing but shallow melodrama and once against filled with an incredibly long and bland section which doesn't have any interest in anything with it not feeling at all like a horror film for much of this section. With an underwhelming and completely uninspiring finale also making this quite a downbeat effort, this overall isn't all that impressive a miniseries.Rated Unrated/R: Violence, some Language, strong violence against animals and intense themes of death.

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.

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.