Frankenstein
Frankenstein
| 05 October 2004 (USA)
SEASON & EPISODES
  • 1
  • Reviews
    GazerRise

    Fantastic!

    ... View More
    Claysaba

    Excellent, Without a doubt!!

    ... View More
    Ariella Broughton

    It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

    ... View More
    Rosie Searle

    It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

    ... View More
    jacobjohntaylor1

    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.

    ... View More
    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.

    ... View More
    Rin Hoshigumo

    Initially, I found this adaptation rather slow-paced for my tastes, but having got through it, I reckon it mustbe the best adaptation; not because I've read the book, but because, for the first time, I'm inspired to. I never before thought that The Creature could have been beautiful. Oh, there was the film with Michael Sarandon as the initially gorgeous Creature, but that was an entirely different sort of beauty. Goss' Creature was beautiful, but in an eldritch way. It wasn't a reassuring beauty. It was a beauty that was all wrong, that should never have come into being and had all the hallmarks of its cadaverous inception. At times, Goss' sensitive portrayal of The Creature's anguish was almost too painful to watch. Scenes of The Creature's suffering juxtaposed with those of Victor's oblivion to it made me hate Victor in a way I never had before, to the point that when this suffering actually encroached on Victor's own life, I actually felt gratified. There was an understatement to the whole piece that made it all the more nightmarish. It clearly showed how people need to find a scapegoat and the dangers of playing God when one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being God. The sad thing about this story is that it didn't have to be this way. Each character made his own choices and did not have to respond to his circumstances in the way that he chose to. It's even sadder that they were blind to this fact till it was too late.

    ... View More
    FromBookstoFilm

    Spoiler almost a scene for scene remake of Coppola's 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein except Elizabeth being reanimated as the Bride of the Monster like in Coppola's 1994 version. A decade improved the material. Hallmark did a great job with this story. It was way better than the 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein which by the way was close to the original novel but the miscasting of Robert DeNiro as the monster ruined that production. This is the definitive version in my book followed by the 1977 film Viktor Frankenstein known as Terror of Frankenstein in the United States as second choice.Third and fourth the Turner Network Television version with Randy Quaid and the Francis Ford Coppola 1994 version with the miscast Robert DeNiro.The 1984 version with David Warner and the 1973 film with Bo Svenson. Hammer films and Universal films put out good productions but could hardly be considered faithful adaptations of the Frankenstein novel and the 1973 Frankenstein:The True Story with Michael Sarrazin was not the true story but true in spirit in the novel and the story retained most of the novels characters. The Hallmark version is long but worth it definitely get the video because on commercial TV it well to put it crudely SUCKS!

    ... View More