Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein...1994...123 minutes...rated R...starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, and Tom Hulce...written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, based off the novel by Mary Shelley...directed by Kenneth Branagh

Fearless Blog Readers, forgive me for presuming too much, but this is Frankenstein. Do I need to summarize Frankenstein? Mad scientist tries to bring life back to the dead, partially succeeds, is tormented by his abandoned creation, and loses everything to his hubris...sound familiar? Please say it sounds familiar, and don't tell me if it isn't. I might weep.

As adaptations of novels go, this selection is quite good...and under Branagh's direction, viewers really do get a sense of Frankenstein's mad rise and fall, forsaking everything else in pursuit of his ambition and then understanding all too well the consequences of his actions. It's also effective in portraying the period in which it's set in, which makes it a bigger film in terms of scale and production. Most of the performances are very good, although I'm not completely sure that Branagh pulls off some of the sheer intensity that I would imagine Dr. Frnakenstein to have.

The pivotal performance, of course, is De Niro's "Adam"...and I think that his portrayal of the monster is what makes the film both good in one way but lacking in another. With both the script and the acting, Adam isn't a mentally slow creature...he is both a fully thinking and feeling being, one that has been exposed in the majority tothe worst that mankind has to offer. This is a creation whose maker abandoned it, and who had to learn on his own without having companionship: such a being is likely doomed to make the choices that this creature does. Still, here's where the disconnect begins.

I've always remembered feeling very sorry for the early movie Frankenstein. This less articulate version seemed less in control of itself, but at heart I guess I always felt that this was a creature capable of gentleness if given half a chance. Of course, the monster is never given that chance and ends up getting destroyed by humanity in its worst state. De Niro's Adam, on the other hand, seems very capable of making different decisions...the ability is there...but doesn't, and while I can intellectually understand why he does what he does, I don't feel for him as much. Is this truer to the novel? Certainly. However, I do think that this emotional linkage is one of the strengths the early black and white Frankenstein film had that the Branagh film sacrifices, and I'm unsure if it was a worthwhile trade.

But don't let me dissuade you from seeing this version..in fact, I hope that you do see it. In some ways, it's both a fresher and older look at what has becomes a monster movie icon, and the talent and effort put into the making of the film is first rate. I honestly do believe that this movie bears the proper name for it..."Bram Stoker's Dracula", on the other hand...well, we'll get there.

I give this movie 3.5 ice floes out of 5.