Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Clarissa Mora The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Nicole 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.

Filipe Neto When the young Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein", she would be far from imagining the impact that it would have. There are literally dozens of films that address that story but cinema never succeeded in making a film that reproduce original novel. This film is the one that comes closest to the book, although it also presents changes. Many are very positive but some of them have no obvious purpose and should have been avoided. For example, the character Clerval was so ignored that he virtually became a prop in the plot, as well as the majority of Frankenstein's family. Even so, its a meritorious effort and worthy of congratulations. Despite this, the public is often mistaken in the judgment that makes of this film. As the name "Frankenstein" is strongly associated with horror, public is led to think that this is just another horror film when its actually a drama. The deception leads some public, who seeks horror, to be disappointed with what they find but, let me stress this, this problem lies in the public and not in the film. We should try to understand a movie for what it is, not what we expected to find.In addition to this effort to be faithful to the book, the film presents excellent filming locations, although some sets may have been better and more faithful to the period in which the story was placed. Frankenstein House hall, for example, with that huge staircase, absurdly disagrees with the location chosen for the exteriors. Costumes, on the other hand, seem more acceptable and historically accurate. The cast is very strong. Of course, with so many stars, a lot of them didn't have the proper time to shine. Kenneth Branagh is very good in the lead, although sometimes theatrical and unnatural; Tom Hulce was mediocre in the role of Clerval because his character was very mistreated by the writer; Ian Holm and Helena Bonham Carter were OK; John Cleese, Robert Hardy and Trevyn McDowell fulfilled but didn't delight us; Robert De Niro did the most striking work in a melodramatic, intense, powerful and psychological portrait of a character who, in other films, was merely an instrument of horror.Despite these merits, the film has a big flaw: it's too melodramatic, full of presumption, self-importance and aspirations of greatness. The emphatic dialogues and attitudes are very theatrical. Soundtrack is magnificent but its too insistent, permanent and likes to appear too much. The movie is very good but it's far from being an epic, and the problem lies in the fact that it looks like it wanted to be. And no one really likes excessive vanity.

mark.waltz 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.

MaximumMadness Ask a random group of people for a list of the most recognizable faces of horror, and chances are the name "Frankenstein" will appear somewhat on that list. And why shouldn't it? Since the creation of the characters near 200 years ago, Frankenstein (or more correctly "Frankenstein's monster") has become an icon of not only horror, but of popular culture in general. With dozens of film adaptations, spin- off works, comics, video games and other examples in just about every other conceivable medium, the story of Victor Frankenstein and his monster is the stuff of legend!One of the more peculiar entries in this vast franchise however has to be director Kenneth Branagh's hotly debated and polarizing 1994 adaptation "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Conceived of as a sort-of sibling to Francis Ford Coppola's popular 90's "Dracula" feature, the film was subject to some behind-the-scenes drama and was met with mixed reception from critics and fans alike. But beyond all of the drama and second guessing, does the film itself work? Beyond the he-said, she-said... is it a good movie when it all comes down to it?...pretty much. It's not the best of the adaptations based around the story, and believe me, it has problems a plenty. But I can't say it was a failure, and if you asked, I'd have to admit that when it comes to "Frankenstein" on screen... it's pretty good.We all know the story. A brilliant doctor who is trying to find the cure to death itself. The monster he creates in his attempts to discover the key to creating life. And the tragedy to follow. What sets this particular take on the tale apart is the sheer thrills of director Branagh's (who also stars) visual direction and the wide and varied cast that populates the story. And for the most part, they are the highlights here.Branagh's got a keen visual sense, this much is evident from his vast array of work. Everything from his Shakespeare adaptations to even his more mainstream work like the Marvel Studios flick "Thor" oozes his kinetic and hyper-real style. And that's on full-display here. I get the feeling that Branagh is trying to mold the film to reflect the manic excitement of Victor himself, and I do think it's an interesting new way to present the story. With flowing camera-work, tilted angles and wild editing, you really get the feeling of how obsessed Frankenstein is in his attempts to create life and how it all implodes around him due to the unforeseen circumstances of his experiments. It's almost shot more akin to a high-stakes action picture than a tale of Gothic horror, but it works for the most part. Although it can be an occasional detriment during the slower scenes of character and story development. Something co-writer Frank Darabont has bemoaned in some interviews, as he viewed the film as a slower and more dramatic character piece. Still, I think that Branagh's wild eye meshes well with the story being told. He just needs to stop drinking so much caffeine during the slower and more deliberate scenes!The cast is a great deal of fun. Branagh makes for a wonderfully crazed new Victor with the giddiness and the excitement of a schoolboy who simply cannot deal with personal tragedy. Helena Bonham Carter makes for a fantastic Elizabeth, despite often being relegated to the sidelines and you really do root for her and Victor's relationship. Classic actor Tom Hulce is a blast as Victor's best friend. And supporting roles by the likes of John Cleese and Ian Holm are all exceptionally well cast.Then there's the monster. Oh boy. Look, I love Robert De Niro, and I'm sure if I wasn't as aware of him as I am that I'd like his version of the monster even more... but there's no getting around it. When you watch the film, you're not seeing a tragic figure of a monster who feels betrayed and abandoned. You're seeing Robert De Niro under heavy makeup. He's trying his hardest and it's a decent performance, but I can't help but feel it's a major miscast because it's so distracting and once or twice it will take you out of the movie.Beyond that, the production is top notch. Patrick Doyle's dark score is haunting and tragic, and is among my favorites of the decade. Roger Pratt's cinematography is absolutely stunning and is lush and wild and dreary and all things that the story call for. Magnificent work. Tim Harvey and James Acheson deliver a splendid one-two punch with their work in production and costume design, giving everything a realistic but stylish flair to augment Victor's crazed energy. (Don't get me started on Victor's fantastic laboratory set!) And all others involved are on-game in the best of ways.The only major aspect of the production I must question is the editing, which in conjunction with Branagh's deranged visuals causes many a problem and is where the film loses some points. This is just a psychotically edited movie. Yes, I understand the purpose behind it... but it feels disjointed and scattershot as a result, with far too many scenes beginning and ending on a whim without proper establishment or payoff, and some cutting that feels sloppy due to the editor and Branagh trying to fit in as many angles and shots as possible. It's a big problem here and I get the feeling that it's where the film will lose a lot of people.Still, for my money, the excellent cast and visually arresting direction trump these issues for the most part. It may have benefited from more deliberate pacing and a different choice of monster... but it's not a bad film for these issues. Merely a troubled one.And so, I'm giving "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" a pretty-good 7 out of 10. Worth seeing for fans looking for a slightly different spin on the iconic classic.

chazwyman Not sure what was on Branagh's mind here, but casting De Nero as the monster was way off beam, and the make-up didn't really work. When you know the face of the young Don Corleoni us under that mask you are just waiting for the next smart remark. Thankfully he avoided the excessively philosophically thinking, eloquent and educated monster that was utterly incredible in the original book, but the one moment of reflection between him and Frankenstein in the ice-cave simply did not ring true. There was a poor understanding of the big screen. And some ridiculously comic moments that were too staged. See Bonham Carter running across the lawn to meet Frankie's horse, just makes you ask why he did not ride up to the house? Then after the monster has harvested the field of turnips, the camera pans to De Nero's face in - to let us all know who did it - just looks so pantomime and silly. But the worst thing is that Branagh seemed to use any excuse to get his shirt off. This was a six-pack too far.