Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)Director: Kenneth Branagh
Writers: Mary Shelley (Novel), Steph Lady (Screenplay), Frank Darabont (Screenplay)
Starring: Robert De Niro, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hulce, Helena Bonham Carter, Aidan Quinn, Ian Holm, Richard Briers, John Cleese
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) is kind of a hard film for me to judge. I really respect the attempt that Kenneth Branagh made to stick to Mary Shelley's original story. However, in the end the story isn't told as well as it could have been. All the important parts of the story are there but the film never seems to get the tone just right. In some ways trying to put so much from the book into the movie was probably more detrimental than anything else. It doesn't allow for the time needed to properly flesh out different parts of the story.
I think a lot of the problems with the film come from the acting. There are a lot of really good actors in this film but none of them seem to fit the part they are playing. I have not seen Kenneth Branagh in much else but I have heard from many people that he is a wonderful Shakespearean actor. He is just never convincing as Dr. Frankenstein though. The obsessive madness needed for the character just never comes through in my opinion. Helena Bonham Carter was also miscast as Elizabeth. Don't get me wrong I think Helena is a beautiful and talented actress but she just wasn't right for this part.
Robert De Niro probably gave the best performance of the movie but even he wasn't great in the film. I think it was probably a mistake to hire a big name actor for the part of the creature in this film. I think a more unknown actor would have been much better in the role. Even with all the heavy make up it was hard to see past De Niro and at least a couple times in the movie he would stand in a way that really reminded me of Travis Bickle, his character from Taxi Driver (1976). I think he also takes his performance just a notch or two over the top in some places, especially in scenes where the creature is crying.While the film does make an effort to follow Shelley's novel more closely than any other film adaptation has in the past, it still does take some missteps. I felt that the creatures transformation from gentle creature to vengeful monster happened just a bit to quickly. I understand that he felt abandoned but it just seemed very abrupt when he decided to take his revenge on Victor. Towards the end the film a few liberties are taken with the character of Elizabeth which creates a major plot point that wasn't from the book. I didn't so much mind this plot point as it helped tie up the story a little quicker than the book does which is kind of necessary for a film.
One of the things that I really did like about the film was the cinematography. I really think the film had a great look to it. Quite often the colors in the film seemed muted and dull, especially in parts of the film involving the creature. I thought this went pretty far in helping to portray the loneliness of the creature. I also kind of liked the look of the creature in this film. The make up was a bit less extreme in this and he looked more like a person than in previous films. He wasn't huge and disproportionate as he had been in other film versions. About the only thing that set him apart from everyone else was that he appeared to be stitched together.Overall I don't think this is a bad telling of the story of Frankenstein but I do think that it could have been a lot better. With different casting and possibly different direction this could have been a really great film. While the story was condensed quite a bit from the book I think Branagh tried to put far too much into the movie and in the end it was too big of a task for him. There were a few superfluous things here and there that could have been cut from the film to help focus the story just a bit more.
Rating: 6/10













4 comments:
Nice review, I definitely have a higher opinion of this one than you. I consider the acting perfect for what Branagh's trying to do, which is to amp up the melodrama. I mean, you mention the cinematography which is absolutely brilliant, but also important is the set design which goes from expressionist to crowded realism from scene to scene. I think that Branagh isn't going for reality, which is why all of the actors seem over-the-top. They all are, but so is the story, so are the sets, so is the dialogue, and having such a cohesive vision of the narrative really does it for me. I like his follow through, and in the end really dig this one.
I think what did it in for me was the fact that it was a little too melodramatic for me. I know the book was a little melodramatic but I think that works better in the book than it does a movie. Melodramatic acting just doesn't really work for me most of the time.
I agree that the set design is amazing, that is one of the things that he did really well.
I will say though, there was one line that I thought De Niro delivered pefectly. When he said "If you deny me my wedding night, I will be with you on yours" it almost gave me chills. He did deliver that line perfectly.
I've wanted to see this one, and just may still. I have a soft spot for The Bride, with Sting and Clancy Brown. Is that in your list?
Tommy Salami, I'd say that it is at least worth seeing. While it isn't going to be topping out any of my lists of favorites it is still a pretty decent movie and worth taking a shot on.
I might have to give The Bride a watch sometime, I don't think it'll be included in this blog-a-thon though. As much as I love Frankenstein I am starting to get a little burned out on it.
Post a Comment