From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Oct 31 09:59:39 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.kth.se!sunic!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!purdue!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail From: bfrazer@panix.com (Bryant Frazer) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03008 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Frazer Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: bfrazer@panix.com (Bryant Frazer) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:48:19 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 81 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2321 rec.arts.sf.reviews:649 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies. _moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Bryant Frazer Copyright 1994 Bryant Frazer If you know Kenneth Branagh's work, you know he has the irrepressible penchant for grand themes and sense of high drama that lend themselves as well to spirited adaptations of Shakespeare as to unabashed pop melodrama. So when his much-heralded adaptation of FRANKENSTEIN first hits the screen, you find yourself a little queasy with anticipation. After all the box-office hits and Orson Welles comparisons, isn't the boy due to let us down? But the potential, and the promise.... The performances, of course, are grand. Branagh directs himself with panache, and DeNiro is, even under his hideous creature makeup, unmistakably DeNiro. As the monster, he is both menacing and undeniably tragic, but no real surprise here. Still, the film could have been a disaster had the role been given to a less-talented actor. Tom Hulce reminds one immediately of his role in AMADEUS, but his presence is welcome. Helena Bonham Carter at first has little to do, but by the end of the film has given an affecting performance in a role which could easily have been maudlin, overbaked, or--worse--inconsequential. John Cleese truly has little to do, but his presence, too, charms the film fan. Sadly (but perhaps unavoidably), the first third of the film seems a bit of a mess. Specifically, Branagh's task is to introduce the character of Victor Frankenstein, establish his obsession with the very nature of life and death, set up the intellectual and ideological conflict between Victor and the academic establishment, and somehow manage to build up to a rousing creation scene ("It's alive ... alive") all within the narrow bounds of the film's first act. So we have spinning cameras, odd shots through wide-angle lenses, weird jump cuts and dissolves, all of which propel the story along at a feverish pitch. Branagh is a virtuoso, but the audience spends this portion of the film oddly detached. Perhaps it doesn't matter; more or less, we all know the story. The rest is much better. Especially in the final act, Branagh affords the characters the development and depth that was denied them early on. It's hard to tell how much of this structure was dictated by the script and how much was Branagh's work at cutting down the film to a manageable length--just over two hours, as it happens. DeNiro's creature stands in dark and humanitarian contrast to Boris Karloff's classic Big Dummy, but film buffs who have never read Shelley's novel may be surprised at how much the original FRANKENSTEIN (and one of its sequels) dovetails with this one. At face value, the two films are very different, but they have many of the same concerns at heart. The drama of terror and loss that caps this production of the story more than makes up for the bland expository scenes that precede it. Little more needs to be said, except that at least one of Branagh's wrenching scenes of hypercinema, a public hanging, is among the most spectacular in film history. No, wait--one more thing needs to be said--the score by Patrick Doyle is not necessarily bad, but it is obtrusive and unwelcome. Perhaps the SDDS auditorium I saw the film in insinuated the music too deep into my consciousness, but I kept wishing Branagh and his monster could just have a quite moment alone, without the damn strings singing songs of impending doom. Branagh builds up that sense of impending doom quite credibly without help from the orchestra pit, thank you very much. In total, this is a more restrained and emotionally honest horror adaptation than Coppola's previous production of BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (which any goth aficionado will tell you was anything but). It stands up well against Branagh's earlier work, but has neither the unbridled sense of fun that drove DEAD AGAIN or the complete mastery of its material that made MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING a blast. It does, however, suggest that Branagh is a filmmaker who is continually extending his reach and truly seeks to reinterpret source material in a uniquely cinematic language. -bf- -- Bryant Frazer 914/631/7155 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 9 11:34:16 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: leeper@mtgbcs.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03052 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Leeper Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: leeper@mtgbcs.att.com Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 20:52:42 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 187 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2359 rec.arts.sf.reviews:660 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Mark R. Leeper Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: Unevenly-paced rendition of the famous horror story takes far fewer liberties than most versions, but still does not really deserve to call itself "Mary Shelley's." Kenneth Branagh has a few bizarre images worth seeing, but much of his film lacks the spark really to capture the imagination of general audiences. Fans of the story, however, will find the film rewarding. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) (This review contains spoilers for people who do not already know the plot of the original novel. I don't believe they would hurt the enjoyment of the film, but reader discretion is advised.) The novel FRANKENSTEIN has been filmed in at least eleven previous English-language versions (listed at the end of this review). But perhaps it is more accurate to say that it has failed to be filmed for nine of those versions. Most adaptations take only an idea or two from the novel. They stitch those ideas together with ideas more from the filmmaker in attempts to infuse the story with the spark of life on the screen. The problem is that the novel has almost no visually dramatic images beyond that of the creature itself. The original novel shies away from describing in any detail the process for creation. This is in part because Frankenstein, who in the novel tells the story, does not want to give away the secret. It also worked out conveniently for the teenaged Mary Shelley, who had only a slight acquaintance with science and could not realistically describe such a process herself. As a result the novel, while exciting, is extremely non-visual. DRACULA, on the other hand, was written by a man in the theater professionally, and that horror novel is extremely dramatic visually. The treatment DRACULA has gotten at the hands of filmmakers is far more shameful since a filmmaker has much more to work with. But in adapting FRANKENSTEIN to the screen a filmmaker is always faced with the dilemma that the more accurate a film version is to the book, the more ponderous and less dramatic the film must be. Calvin Floyd's VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (TV title: TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN) is the only version I would call a faithful adaptation of the novel. But that film, an ambitious Swedish-Irish co-production, turned out impenetrably static and dull even for a Swedish film. Dan Curtis made a middlingly faithful version for television in 1972, and most other filmmakers have not even tried to be faithful to the book, either because of the nature of the book or because they have just been sure that they could improve on Shelley. But adapting this novel to the screen in a way that is both faithful and entertaining is a real puzzle comparable to, say, giving modern audiences something they can enjoy from Shakespearean plays like HENRY V or MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. So Kenneth Branagh has taken on the ambitious task of adapting FRANKENSTEIN to the screen in a reasonably faithful manner. Sadly, this film will not be his crowning achievement, but it is not a disaster either. People looking for excitement on the screen and people who wanted to see Shelley's novel accurately done will probably agree that this movie is just okay, but nothing great. But, in fact, Branagh has a sort of a moral victory on both fronts. He perhaps has created the second most faithful screen adaptation and still has managed to make it moderately entertaining. And fans of the horror film will find he has infused some of the most interesting and bizarre original visual images since James Whale did the 1931 version. The script does take liberties with the original story but generally these changes show the expert hand of Frank Darabont as the co-writer. Darabont, who wrote and directed THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, has a remarkable ability to see minor strategic revisions to a story that have maximum impact in improving the resulting story. For example, modern readers of the novel are usually surprised that Frankenstein is not more concerned when his creature escapes and disappears. By the minor addition of setting the creation during a bad cholera epidemic, the script explains how Frankenstein is able to find "parts" as plentiful as he does, adds some visually exciting street scenes, and explains why Frankenstein had reasonable motivation for believing that his escaped creature will perish on his own. The epidemic is a very minor liberty which pays major dividends to the story-telling. With the exception of purists, most people should appreciate that the story works better with the change. There is a sequence toward the end of the film that is a major departure from the novel. It picks up the interest in a section of the story that would be slow and pays homage to another cinematic Frankenstein story. Generally Branagh's style in telling the classic story is to take less dramatic scenes in the novel and to goose them up so that they are considerably more engaging in film version. For example, while the ship in the framing story just quietly gets locked by ice, the film version has an exciting scene of the ship foundering as the ice closes in on it while in the background huge icebergs rear out of the water. Time and again this film has scenes from the novel but gives them more dramatic interpretations, which is exactly what the story needed. Scenes that would normally have some dramatic impact, like the creation scene, are further energized by short quick cuts. In fact, the creation scene is a study all by itself. The laboratory that is the setting seems strangely organic instead of mechanistic as is the case in many film versions. Mammoth bags of electric eels pulsate over the body. As we approach the instant of creation Branagh uses a frenzy of shorter and shorter cuts, then at the instant of the creation the pace changes to a long languorous shot. I assume the male readers will understand what just that particular pacing has to do with the act of creating life. It is amazing what you can do with editing. Moments later we see the creature pulled from its watery artificial womb amid a torrent of spilling fluid, again a very powerful birth image. The laboratory mechanisms are as bizarre for us today as Kenneth Strickfaden's electrical gizmos and Jack Pierce's neck bolts must have been to 1931 audiences. Whatever faults the film might have, and it certainly has them, the creation sequence makes up for. The set design is often sumptuous. Much of what we see of Frankenstein's palatial family home takes place in a huge front hall dominated by a mammoth stairway that is at once both beautiful and dangerous-looking, another very symbolic image. Street scenes have a realistic feel. Some of the script touches seem not well thought-out. It is tempting to say these touches were made after Darabont's work since they seem uncharacteristic of the care he seems to take with a script, but of course there is no way to tell for sure. At one point Frankenstein writes in his journal that in the morning he will destroy this journal. So why is he bothering to write? Did he have a surfeit of ink? In another sequence Frankenstein is standing in the middle of his home's enormous empty front lawn. He turns to the house, but from nowhere we see the previously undetected creature reach out his hand and grab Frankenstein. What did he do, burrow up from underground? Hoe do you sneak up on someone standing in an open field? Most film versions interpret the creature as a sort of zombie--the resurrected dead. Shelley saw the creature more as a baby in the artificially-created body of a large and powerful man. Branagh really gives the creature both aspects and walks a tightrope between them, much as the Karloff films did. The creature sees the world with fresh eyes, but can draw on memories of a former life. Branagh's version has Frankenstein initially inspired by the wish to bring his mother back from the dead, so he himself thinks of his work as resurrection as much as it is creation. In another departure in interpretation, Shelley's creature was powerfully strong, but only humanly so. Branagh's version chooses to give him superhuman strength. Most film versions do this, of course, but VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN and the Dan Curtis version do not. As Frankenstein, Branagh is intense and angry. Unlike the moody Colin Clive or even Peter Cushing, Branagh is vital and alive in the role. Top billing goes to Robert De Niro as the creature. It is a casting decision that I still do not understand, unless it was a role that De Niro himself was anxious to play. I do not think it is as hard to play the creature well as most people think it is. I have always contended that it takes far more acting talent to play believably a Georgia cotton farmer than to play Frankenstein's creature. The creature should have some humanity, but also some feel of being alien. But as long as an actor gives him that, not much else he can do with the role can be wrong. The creature needs imposing physically--which De Niro is not--and beyond that just has to be a good creative actor. Except for stature problems De Niro is fine in the role, but is over- qualified for the role that should have gone to encourage the career of promising but less recognized actor. The surprise of the film is John Cleese in a rare serious role. He is terrific as an aging scientist who could have created life himself but who lacked the final spark of courage. His Dr. Waldman is a man broken by his own cowardice at taking that one last step (at least that is my interpretation). His is the most interesting character in the film, ironically. Helena Bonham-Carter is her usual pouty character as Elizabeth. Tom Hulce is just a little too naughty-schoolboy-ish to play Henry Clerval. This interpretation does not always work, but at its best it is a vital interpretation of the Shelley book. I would have to give Branagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Previous film English language versions with the actor who played the creature: - FRANKENSTEIN (1910)--Charles Ogle - LIFE WITHOUT SOUL (1915)--Percy Darrell Standing (I have not seen it) - FRANKENSTEIN (1931)--Boris Karloff - CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)--Christopher Lee - HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970)--David Prowse - FRANKENSTEIN (1972)--Bo Svenson - FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1974)--Michael Sarazan - ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN (1974)--Carlo Mancini - VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (a.k.a TERROR OF FRANKENSTEIN) (1975)--Per Oscarsen - FRANKENSTEIN (1984)--David Warner - FRANKENSTEIN (1993)--Randy Quaid Mark R. Leeper mark.leeper@att.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 9 11:35:53 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: ben.hoffman@bcsbbs.com (Ben Hoffman) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03053 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=B.Hoffman Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: ben.hoffman@bcsbbs.com (Ben Hoffman) Organization: The BCS BBS - Los Angeles, CA - 213-962-2902 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 20:53:17 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 41 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2360 rec.arts.sf.reviews:661 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Ben Hoffman Copyright 1994 Ben Hoffman As Kenneth Branagh "can do no wrong" in my book, I was shaken to find that I was dumb-struck by the poorly conceived movie I was watching. Everything about it was bad and big and loud and a hodge-podge. How could someone as good as Branagh direct and act in a film so lacking in everything? To begin with, "the monster," Robert de Niro. Why did the film need a star of his caliber who had comparatively few lines and those mostly mumbles. His face was as ugly and off-putting as one could imagine, filled with oversized sutures for which a surgeon would be arrested for botching the job. Karloff was and looked a hundred times better. Karloff was unknown; his first film was in 1916. Fifteen years later he had some mild success in The Criminal Code but it was not until his Monster role that same year in Frankenstein that he became a star. Did Branagh choose De Niro because he wanted a "name?" If, as Branagh says, the film is about "Love," the love he does not give his Creation but lavishes instead on Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), he missed the mark completely. With perhaps one of the world's most famous horror stories to work with, Branagh failed. Tom Hulce has the role of Dr Frankenstein's friend, while John Cleese is the doctor who first thought of creating life but gave up the idea. Aidin Quinn and Ian Holm are also in the cast. 1.5 Bytes 4 Bytes = Absolutely must see. 3 Bytes = Too good to be missed. 2 Bytes = So so. 1 Byte = Save your money. Ben Hoffman From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 9 11:36:20 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: AS.IDC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Scott Renshaw) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03054 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Renshaw Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: AS.IDC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Scott Renshaw) Organization: Stanford University Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 20:53:37 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 81 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2361 rec.arts.sf.reviews:662 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Scott Renshaw Copyright 1994 Scott Renshaw Starring: Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter. Screenplay: Steph Lady and Frank Darabont. Director: Kenneth Branagh. In the first place, this is *not* Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN. As iconic and thematically fascinating as Shelley's novel might be, it is unfilmable as written, a rambling piece more notable for long philosophical musings than for any action one would consider cinematically ideal. No, while this version may be more faithful than most, it is really Kenneth Branagh's FRANKENSTEIN, and therein lies its crucial failing. While ostensibly attempting to stay close to Shelley's often tedious narrative, Branagh is more frequently indulging his bombastic filmmaking style, giving us the gee-whiz camera work of DEAD AGAIN without any of that film's sense of fun. Branagh also stars as Victor Frankenstein, the Swiss medical student haunted by the death of his mother. Determined to find a way to defeat death, he decides to pursue the experiments of his mentor Dr. Waldman (John Cleese) into the re-animation of dead tissue. Frankenstein's experiment is a success, but when he sees the creature (Robert DeNiro) that is his handiwork, he abandons it. However, the creature survives, escaping into the country to learn about its own nature. When it realizes who is responsible for its existence, the creature decides to seek vengeance, on Frankenstein and his beloved fiancee Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). There are a truckload of bad decisions involved in MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, but the most glaring might be Branagh casting himself as the good mad doctor. As talented a Shakespearean stage actor as he is, he is also a Shakespearean stage actor on film. Victor Frankenstein is a character defined by torment, but Branagh's version of torment often consists of howling and tearing at his hair. The screenplay by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont does far too little to establish the Oedipal subtext which is the basis for Frankenstein's obsession, making Branagh's reaction to his mother's death look comically overboard. When nearly a full hour goes by before the creature plays a significant role, Frankenstein's characterization needs to be developed more consistently and subtly, and Branagh can't pull it off. He also seems to direct that first hour without any thought of the audience. It's true that he's dealing with a script that leap-frogs over twenty years in the first ten minutes, but Branagh's editing choices are baffling. The opening sequence, which takes place on a ship in the Arctic, is so loud and fast that it borders on the incoherent; the next twenty minutes are a crashing bore. FRANKENSTEIN always looks impressive, particularly the mammoth stairway of the Frankenstein manor which seems to take on a life of its own, but until the creation sequence Branagh spends an awful lot of time doing precious little but creating atmosphere as precociously as possible. The creation sequence does signal a significant improvement in FRANKENSTEIN, and that is largely due to the surprisingly expressive performance of Robert DeNiro as the creature. Even under mounds of gruesome latex, DeNiro gives the creature an interior life, and some of the scenes which focus on his interaction with a peasant family are extremely touching. But he is frequently failed by Branagh's direction, because Branagh doesn't want to concentrate on the story's philosophical underpinnings--he wants to film an opera. He directs the same way someone once described Whitney Houston's singing: he never walks when he can cartwheel. There are moments of undeniable power in MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, including a horrifying sequence involving the creation of a bride for the creature, and they are so strong that they almost make up for the flotsam between them. Unfortunately, for the most part FRANKENSTEIN the movie ends up a lot like the creature itself: alternately lumbering and chaotic, and a patchwork mess. On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 creatures: 5. -- Scott Renshaw Stanford University Office of the General Counsel From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 9 11:37:37 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: blake7@cc.bellcore.com (berardinelli,james) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03055 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Berardinelli Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: blake7@cc.bellcore.com (berardinelli,james) Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 20:53:52 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 157 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2362 rec.arts.sf.reviews:663 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by James Berardinelli Copyright 1994 James Berardinelli Rating (0 to 10): 7.4 Date Released: 11/4/94 Running Length: 2:04 Rated: R (Violence, gore) Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Richard Briers, Robert Hardy, John Cleese Director: Kenneth Branagh Producers: Francis Ford Coppola, James V. Hart, and John Veitch Screenplay: Steph Lady and Frank Darabont based on the novel by Mary Shelly Cinematography: Roger Pratt Music: Patrick Doyle Released by TriStar Pictures "In the last 20, 30 years, [FRANKENSTEIN has] been claimed by a whole generation of academics and scholars as a seminal piece of literature of that time. [It's] something which now, post-Freud, they feel reveals so many observations about family life, and incest, father-and-son relationships, and husband and wife relationships. [FRANKENSTEIN] speaks loudly to people, partly because it's so elusive. There's no definitive interpretation of it--it's certainly more than just a monster story." - Kenneth Branagh, director of MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN During the course of more than thirty adaptations, sequels, spin- offs, rip-offs, and spoofs, the name of "Frankenstein" has become associated with one of the world's most recognizable movie monsters. The creature, as typified by Boris Karloff with outstretched arms, flat- topped head, and ubiquitous neck bolts, has met the likes of Dracula, the Wolfman, and even Abbott and Costello. It has been played by (among others) Charles Ogle, Karloff, Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, Glenn Strange, Christopher Lee, Fred Gwynne (as Herman Munster), and now, Robert De Niro. Rarely, however, has a cinematic interpretation of "the daemon" approached the level of three-dimensionality with which it is portrayed in the novel. As conceived and written by Shelly, FRANKENSTEIN was more of a gothic melodrama than a horror story. Considered in its most basic terms, the tale is one of actions and their consequences, and of what happens when man, in his hubris, attempts to usurp the role of God. For the most part, however, motion pictures have chosen to ignore the weightier issues of the book to concentrate instead on the "monster movie" aspects. With this latest cinematic depiction, director (and uncredited co-writer) Kenneth Branagh has taken a less-traveled path. He has chosen to view FRANKENSTEIN as a tragedy of Greek (or, given his background, Shakespearean) proportions. What Branagh should recognize better than anyone, though, is that tragedy is at its most effective when allowed to cook slowly, basting in its own juices. This version of FRANKENSTEIN moves so frantically that far too many subtleties get lost along the way. The result is a rousing, occasionally-chaotic (especially during the choppily-edited first half-hour) piece of work that, while undeniably entertaining, lacks a depth that might otherwise have been attained. Patrick Doyle's bombastic score helps only to underline the melodramatic elements of this production, rarely allowing a quiet or reflective moment. As far as its faithfulness to the source material is concerned, MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN frequently differs from the book on plot points, but the two are thematically in synch. Several movie characters bear little resemblance to their book counterparts beyond having the same name (Dr. Waldeman, Frankenstein's mentor, being a chief example), and there is a significant alteration in the last act. Surprisingly enough, although it reflects nothing written by Shelly, this scene is effective in underlining the weaknesses and strengths of both Victor Frankenstein and his creature. Can a man create life, then abandon his creation because its appearance horrifies him? To whom are its actions then attributable: the creature or the being who brought about its existence? Shelly did not answer these questions, but she certainly posed them. Following her example, Branagh does the same. The greatest strength of MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN is that it illustrates both the good and evil qualities in each of its main characters. Of the two--Robert De Niro's creature and Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein--the former is, perhaps surprisingly, the more sympathetic. In part because of the script and in part because of the acting (De Niro gives a stronger performance than his director/co-star), the creature seems almost the more "human" of the two. In its own words, it is capable of great love and great rage. Frankenstein, on the other hand, often comes across as petty, self-serving, and ambitious. Only towards the end, when he finally grasps the full consequences of his actions, does the scientist capture a measure of our understanding. Despite the presence of John Cleese--who is excellent in a straight, if somewhat limited, role--there is no comic relief in MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN (or at least none that is intentional--a few lines here and there are too-obviously overacted, which can lead to a chuckle or two). However, since the screenplay is not relentlessly downbeat, the bursts of action and horror are effective enough in lessening tension that breaks of levity are not needed. In fact, given the tone of this film, humor might easily have seemed an unwelcome intrusion. Shelly was never concerned about the scientific realism of Frankenstein's actions. She describes neither his experiments nor the practical (as opposed to the philosophical) reasoning that leads to them. In this film, while Branagh doesn't attempt to fully remedy this lapse (something that obviously can't be done), he presents enough pseudo- scientific evidence to suggest how the creation of a life might plausibly be accomplished. Suspension of disbelief is, of course, requisite for the viewer at this point. One area where this FRANKENSTEIN meets expectations is in its cast. The weakest link is Branagh (and that's not to suggest that he gives a bad performance, because he doesn't), whose Victor is more than occasionally overwrought. De Niro, although buried beneath hours' worth of makeup, is less monstrous here than in films like CAPE FEAR and THE UNTOUCHABLES. The sequence where the creature befriends a family, anonymously providing them food (instead of firewood, as in the book) while observing and learning from them through a chink in a wall, is marvelously moving, and possibly the best moment offered by the film. Helena Bonham Carter gives a feisty and fiery interpretation of Elizabeth, who eventually becomes much more than merely Frankenstein's love interest. Richard Briers (as the blind patriarch of the creature's adopted "family"), Ian Holm (as Frankenstein's father), Tom Hulce (as Frankenstein's best friend and fellow student, Henry Clerval), Aidan Quinn (as the north-pole bound explorer Robert Walton), Robert Hardy (as the odious Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (as Justine, the Frankensteins' housekeeper) and John Cleese (as Waldeman, Frankenstein's mentor) round out the supporting cast. The film has a striking visual look, which owes as much to the set design and special effects as to the soaring cinematography of Roger Pratt. Although Branagh does not opt for straight horror, the gothic element of the tale is very much in evidence as a result of the carefully-crafted atmosphere of several key scenes. From the Arctic Ocean to the Swiss Alps and the plague-riddled streets of Ingolstadt, MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN is a wonder to behold. Comparison's with 1992's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA are inevitable, especially since both came from Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope production company. Considering the merits of both movies, however, there is little doubt which is more effective. Kenneth Branagh's film is stronger thematically and visually, possesses more solid characterization, and boasts Robert De Niro and Helena Bonham Carter rather than Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. MARY SHELLY'S FRANKENSTEIN may not be the definitive version of the 1817 novel, and the director likely attempted more than is practical for a two-hour film, but overambition is preferable to the alternative, especially if it results--as in this case--in something more substantial than Hollywood's typical, fitfully entertaining fluff. - James Berardinelli (blake7@cc.bellcore.com) From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 9 11:37:50 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: femm@pluto.clinch.edu (Freddie Elmer Mullins) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03056 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Mullins Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: femm@pluto.clinch.edu (Freddie Elmer Mullins) Organization: University of Virginia Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 20:56:02 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 108 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2363 rec.arts.sf.reviews:664 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Freddie Elmer Mullins Copyright 1994 Freddie Elmer Mullins Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Goes Back To Its Source For Inspiration The original FRANKENSTEIN, released in 1931, is one of the most beloved, imitated, and spoofed movies of all time. It presented Boris Karloff with his square head and electrodes on each side of his neck. His characterization of the monster endowed it with a childlike innocence that underlined the malevolence it was forced into. Tackling such an enduring screen image is a daunting task, but actor-director Kenneth Branagh (HENRY V, DEAD AGAIN) has managed to carve out his own niche in the gallery of monster movies. The plot closely follows the original novel by Mary Shelley, and this may result in some surprises for anyone with preconceptions of how a horror movie should be. Branagh plays Victor Frankenstein as a person who becomes immersed in the quest for forbidden knowledge instead of your stereotypical "mad scientist." Frankenstein is influenced early in his life by the death of his doting mother due to complications from childbirth. This leads Frankenstein to resolve to find a way to improve the quality of life en route to his ultimate goal of cheating death. Frankenstein takes these ideas with him when he travels to medical school. His professors dismiss his "radical and immoral" postulations of ways to combine new discoveries being made(this is the middle of the Scientific Revolution) with ancient philosophers. Frankenstein finds a kindred spirit in Professor Waldman (Monty Python's John Cleese in a fine dramatic turn), who had the same type of questions and striving for the elusive mystery of life. With access to Waldman's knowledge and equipment, Frankenstein soon decides to try to "construct" a life, using the corpses of the victims of a recent outbreak of cholera. The death of Waldman accelerates Frankenstein's plans and he collects all of the necessary materials: bodily organs, the body of a recently hanged beggar (Robert De Niro), and most importantly Waldman's brain. The sequence where the creature is brought to life needs to be and is extremely impressive. Branagh runs through his lab bare-chested pushing buttons and flicking switches, until finally unleashing the electric eels onto the piecework body to give the necessary electrical charge. Branagh cautiously underplays these scenes in contrast to Colin Clive's famous scene in the original movie where he runs around screaming "It's alive! It's alive!" Branagh thinks his creation is dead, but it escapes along with his journal. All of the action up to this point is extremely involving and exciting. However, after De Niro's version of the monster escapes, the story gets bogged down in soggy melodrama. Frankenstein is having complications with his fiancee/foster-sister, Elizabeth (veteran of numerous Merchant/Ivory films, Helena Bonham Carter), and the monster tries to learn about human nature by helping out a family who ultimately shun him. The best sequence in the movie occurs towards the end when the monster gives Frankenstein an ultimatum: make him a mate or the good doctor will lose his wife. Frankenstein and Elizabeth try to flee, but the monster exacts his revenge in a manner similar to something out of an Indiana Jones movie. Branagh obviously can't accept loss very well because his denial of Elizabeth's murder leads him down the same path of self-destruction. He tries to bring Carter back to life, and the results are predictably bad. The sequence of Carter's re-animation and her subsequent reaction is the eeriest in the film, and one wishes the tone established could have been present through the whole movie. MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is an elaborate production which has obviously had a lot of blood, sweat, and tears invested in it. Robert De Niro's (MEAN STREETS, GOODFELLAS) interpretation of the monster is a complex characterization that can be easily misconstrued. He is truly a menacing sight. A literal version of Mr. Potato Head with his stitched together appearance, shaved head, twisted features, and his characteristically gruff voice, De Niro is quite a menacing sight. His character's role is wrote solidly, and De Niro manages to interject a feeling of sympathy for the tortured character that he plays. It is a combination of Max Cady from CAPE FEAR (1991) and Jake La Motta from RAGING BULL (1980). The major problem with the movie is Branagh and his portrayal of Frankenstein. Instead of being a deranged man approaching knowledge not meant for mortals, Branagh comes off as a normal guy who just wants to make sure no one else's mother ever has to die. He needs to add a larger dose of neurosis to his character, and he approaches that level towards the end of the movie when the mental strain of his marriage and dealing with the problem he himself created begins to show. There needs to be more a mad gleam in his eye, and it just isn't there. Another problem is some of the set design. The staircase in the Frankenstein mansion looks like the one out of CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1919). It doesn't seem possible that these stairs could exist if the audience is supposed to believe it exists in the house shown in the exterior shots. In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola (APOCALYPSE NOW) re-defined the modern horror picture by taking a well-defined character and presented it in its original context with BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. This set off a trend of examining classic characters in their contemporary setting. This is important to remember when viewing MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. Shelley's novel dealt with the consequences of man learning too much about the ways of the universe and the ramifications of the application of such knowledge. It examines important issues such as dangerous obsessions, the true nature of knowledge as good or evil, and how we must take responsibility for our actions. Kenneth Branagh has managed to craft a motion picture that captures the intentions of Shelley's original work and its original implications. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Nov 10 09:44:22 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!uunet!newsgw.mentorg.com!sdl!plts!big.info.att.com!allegra!ulysses!nntpa!not-for-mail From: legeros@unx.sas.com (Michael J. Legeros) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03057 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Legeros Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: legeros@unx.sas.com (Michael J. Legeros) Organization: SAS Institute, Inc. Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 17:38:09 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 81 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2364 rec.arts.sf.reviews:665 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Michael John Legeros Copyright 1994 Michael John Legeros Directed by Kenneth Branagh Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, from the novel by Mary Shelley Cast Robert DeNiro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, and John Cleese MPAA Rating "R" (what else?) Running Time Approx. 120 minutes === "Did you ever consider the consequences of your actions?" - DeNiro to Branagh No FRANKENSTEIN film should ever be boring. Period. Not THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, not YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, and certainly not MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN. But boring is as boring does and this refreshingly literate monster movie is one creation that never comes to life. Don't blame the source material. Shelley's story always contained more philosophy than atrocity, and writers Steph Lady and Frank Darabont doctor the horrors appropriately. With one eleventh-hour exception, their transgressions are all very tasteful. This FRANKENSTEIN is a thinking's man's monster movie, where The Creature spends more time learning language than lumbering. With appropriate tweaks to the original story--such as electric eels as energy sources--there should be enough scares here to spook anyone. But the surrounding story never comes together. The tone isn't quite right, and parts of the plot always seems to be missing. Did test screenings do this? The generous leaps and bounds of the story suggest serious snipping in post-production. The film stinks for subtext, as well. Director Kenneth Branagh--the man who put Shakespeare in the cineplex--offers no commentary on the horrors of 16th-century medicine. Nor does he effectively examine the relationship between Victor and his adopted sister (Helena Bonham Carter). His worst omission: a sense of humor. This FRANKENSTEIN should be brimming with sly winks and subtle nods to earlier incarnations. But, no, not once does the doctor even so much as yell "it's alive." (And what's with that "circling" camera technique? Is the director trying to infuse into ever scene a sense of action? Excitement? Dizziness?) Playing the infamous Victor Von, Branagh is all buffed and beautiful for his steamy laboratory scenes. But his eyes burn with neither malice nor madness--he's a good boy who's too good. Better is DeNiro, a stitch (sorry) as The Creature. His misshapen mass of serrated scars and slurred syllables is a welcome presence in the second hour. Supporting roles go to Ian Holm, Aidan Quinn, Tom Hulce, Richard Briers, and, as a heavy (!), John Cleese. Why the latter is forced to wear dental props, though, is never explained. Sorry, sorry. To the credit of everyone involved, there is one, great moment to remember. The scene occurs toward the end of the film, when The Creature does something very bad to someone very good. That brief, horrible act brings a rush of excitement into the film like oxygen into a backdraft. And, for a few, fleeting moments, you can clearly see the terror that should've been there from the beginning. And then it's gone. BOTTOM LINE: Frankly speaking, Kenneth Branagh should stick to Shakespeare. Grade: C- -- Michael J. Legeros Raleigh, North Carolina From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Nov 10 09:44:22 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!pipex!uunet!newsgw.mentorg.com!sdl!plts!big.info.att.com!allegra!ulysses!nntpa!not-for-mail From: 70004.1065@CompuServe.COM (Jeffrey Graebner) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03058 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Graebner Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com ~Reply-To: 70004.1065@CompuServe.COM (Jeffrey Graebner) Organization: via CompuServe Information Service Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 17:38:37 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 160 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2365 rec.arts.sf.reviews:666 [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.sf.movies. -Moderator] MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Jeffrey Graebner Copyright 1994 Jeffrey Graebner Sometimes, there can be a very thin line between overindulgence and brilliance. Kenneth Branagh's new film adaptation of MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN frequently straddles that line, occasionally ending up on both sides of it. Thankfully, the majority of the movie stays on the brilliant side. Of course, Shelley's tale of Victor Frankenstein and his creation is one of the best known (and most often filmed) stories (the word "Frankenstein" even appears in the dictionary). Most past film versions have only stuck with Shelley's very basic premise, while making radical changes to the specifics. The screenplay to this film, by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, goes back to the original novel for a much more faithful adaptation. There are certain changes made to accommodate the differences between the film and literature, but the film depicts a number of incidents from the novel that have not been present in other adaptations. It is also much more true to the *spirit* of the original story, particularly in its portrayal of the creature. Unlike the best known adaptations of the past, the creature (played here by Robert DeNiro) is not a monosyllabic brute. Instead, he is given a great deal of intelligence and very deep emotion. The creature has significantly heightened strength, but his feelings are also equally enhanced. It is these emotions that make him dangerous, but they also make him quite human. This conflict, along with Victor's inability to truly understand what he has created, forms the heart of this film. As in the original novel, the story is told in flashback as Victor (played by Branagh himself) recounts his tale to a ship captain (Aidan Quinn) who encounters him while obsessively searching for a water passage to the North Pole. We learn that, after his mother dies giving birth to his younger brother, Victor becomes so obsessed with death that he begins experimenting with ways to defeat it. In time, this obsession leads him to the actual desire to *create* life. While studying to become a doctor, Victor meets Professor Waldman (John Cleese, who is virtually unrecognizable) who has come very close to achieving this goal. After Waldman himself is killed, Victor takes over his work and creates the creature. After Victor becomes convinced that his creation is evil, he abandons it to die. Eventually, the creature learns to think, speak, and even read. He reads Victor's journals and returns seeking either vengeance, peace, or probably both. The other key character in the story is Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), the adoptive sister who eventually becomes Victor's love. The irony in this romance comes from the fact that Victor is so obsessed with defeating death that he fails to see that this woman is representative of real *life*. He is struggling to create life, when he already *has* it. There is one very pivotal sequence towards the end of the film which was not in Shelley's novel, but which manages to explore this aspect of the story in a very powerful and moving way. Even if it wasn't in the original novel, it is a wonderful extrapolation of one of the story's key ideas. While the story of Frankenstein is unquestionably a horror story, it is important to distinguish between horror and being scary. Many of the events portrayed in this film are horrific, but they are *not* particularly scary. People going into the film expecting constant shocks and scares are likely to be disappointed. The movie is somewhat gory at times (there are a few bloody scenes and the creation of the creature involves quite a bit of bodily fluid), but the gore is never gratuitous. This is a story that is full of passion and powerful emotions. Both as a director and as an actor, Kenneth Branagh's classical theatrical background leads him to a style of heightened, almost indulgent emotion. Branagh very rarely plays anything small, but instead is virtually always playing scenes out to the hilt. The result is a film that is frantic and breathless, but also is full of powerful images and emotions. Branagh's performance as Victor is one of constant motion. He shows the obsessive personality of the character by constantly running from place to place, often dripping in sweat and shouting his dialog. The performance is very theatrical and occasionally goes over-the-top, but it all really manages to fit the character. In many ways, we are able to actually *feel* Victor's obsession through Branagh's grandiose and passionate performance. In contrast, DeNiro's performance is much quieter and more controlled. He is required to go from scenes of quiet tenderness to other scenes of pure rage. The real key to the character is that he feels these powerful emotions, but he was never taught how to control them. After Victor's abandonment, he was forced to mature on his own without any kind of moral guidance. The makeup effects do a good job at making DeNiro look frightening while still allowing him to do a great deal of acting with his facial expressions. DeNiro is often able to express a lot of emotion with very little dialog. It is another courageous and fascinating performance by one of the most daring actors of our time. The real strength of this story is that neither Victor or his creation can be classified as either a hero or a villain. While this is a cautionary tale about the possible consequences of science, it leaves a lot of question about whether it is the actual *act* of creating a life that is immoral or if it is Victor's treatment of that life once the creation is finished. The film introduces the possibility that the story might have turned out differently if Victor had nurtured his creation instead of abandoning him. As Elizabeth, Helena Bonham Carter is often required to serve as the voice of reason in the midst of all that is happening. She needs to provide a kind of moral touchstone for Victor. Unfortunately, this is one aspect of the film that doesn't quite work as well as it should. For one thing, she simply doesn't have enough scenes with Branagh. The movie could have used a little more time exploring the relationship between these two characters. There is nothing particularly wrong with Bonham Carter's performance but, with the exception of a few brief scenes, there really isn't a lot of chemistry developed between her and Branagh. The film includes a strong supporting cast as well. Cleese gives a surprisingly effective, purely dramatic performance as Professor Waldman. Tom Hulce provides most of the film's comic relief as Henry, a college friend of Victor's. He is also the only other character (besides Victor and the creature) who is aware of Victor's experimentation, thus providing an occasional source for questioning dialog. Another very effective performance is given by Richard Briers as an elderly blind peasant who is the only person who is able to get past the creature's appearance and recognize his humanity. As the sea captain, Aidan Quinn's performance is probably the weakest in the film. Quinn makes the mistake of attempting an accent which comes and goes, but is never believable. The production and set design as well as the cinematography in this film are all outstanding and very inventive. The actual creation sequence is one of the most breathtakingly exciting sequences placed on film in recent memory. Branagh's usual musical collaborator Patrick Doyle provides a dramatic score that occasionally threatens to become overbearing, but never quite overstays its welcome. The music contributes a great deal to the power of some of the key scenes. This is a very visually oriented film and the dialog does occasionally seem a bit stilted. The story occasionally becomes pretty complicated and on occasion writers Lady and Darabont do give in to the temptation to overexplain things a bit. On a whole, though, the writing is strong and does a very good job at exploring the many interesting ideas in this story. A lot of people are probably going to be turned off when they discover that MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is not the type of movie they are expecting. It takes a very different approach from other past film versions of this story. Some may be turned off by the film's relative lack of scares while others may be bothered by the giddy excesses of Branagh's classically theatric style. On the other hand, though, I think others will, like me, be intrigued by the fascinating themes and ideas explored while also being seduced by the sheer emotion of the film. I feel that this is one of the most exciting cinematic experiences of 1994. -- Jeffrey P. Graebner Columbus, Ohio From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Dec 16 10:51:07 1994 Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Path: news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!sunic!news.tele.fi!news.csc.fi!news.eunet.fi!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uop!pacbell.com!att-out!nntpa!not-for-mail From: chrisrob@cix.compulink.co.uk (Sue Roberts) Subject: REVIEW: MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN Message-ID: Followup-To: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf.movies Summary: r.a.m.r. #03150 Originator: ecl@mtgp003 Keywords: author=Roberts Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgp003.mt.att.com Reply-To: chrisrob@cix.compulink.co.uk (Sue Roberts) Organization: ? Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:01:19 GMT Approved: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com Lines: 60 Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:2450 rec.arts.sf.reviews:701 MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN A film review by Sue Roberts Copyright 1994 Sue Roberts Produced by Francis Ford Coppola. Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont. Starring Robert de Niro, Kenneth Branagh, Helena Bonham-Carter, Ian Holm, John Cleese,Tom Hulce, Aidan Quinn, Robert Hardy. Magnificently theatrical and exceptionally gung-ho. Branagh's direction (and acting) captures the excitement of a swashbuckling adventure story. De Niro's humane performance as the "Creature" allowed the horror of the ideas behind the film room to breathe. I loved the inclusion of John Cleese as a doctor on the edge of a fearsome discovery. It rewound the Monty Python "Organ Donor" sketch back to it's origins. After THE SECRET GARDEN, Ford Coppola seems to have hit his stride, portraying revolting antiquated medical techniques. The action was played out on vast operatic sets and this is one of those rare films where everything comes together to create a cohesive whole (and I don't just mean the monster). The screenplay is a clever synthesis of the Monster's tale within Mary Shelley's book, and the early experiments with electricity which so fascinated her husband. The tale as written is fairly circumspect. Much of the horror portrayed hints at biographical details in the authors own life. Branagh's performance is of a student obsessed with science for the benefit of mankind. He sets out with the best of intentions, never considering the practical consequences, should he succeed! What makes this tale of 1816 contemporary is that his relief at not being discovered makes him keep silent. Central to the whole piece though, is the discussion of ethics. Should portions of one human be used for another? Whether it is Frankenstein, as the handler of raw materials, is responsible, or those who cannot accept deformity. The father of a son who is violent, and beyond his control. I was really shocked that this film has a "15" certificate. If you are not a vegetarian when you go in, you may be by the time you come out. The Hollywood competition is perhaps measured in pints of red ink, but the lighting on the creature's attempts to stand almost hint at God wrestling with his conscience. Shall he allow this ambitious young man to feel the burden of creation with all it's triumphs and it's terrors? "I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper," was Mary Shelley's comment on her work.... Sue Roberts. chrisrob@cix.compulink.co.uk