list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Mary Shelley's Frankenstein on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Mary_Shelley_s_Frankenstein/90095/default.aspx Title: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Year: 1994
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Plot: Director Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic horror novel stars Robert DeNiro as a terrifying monster created in an obsessive attempt to defeat death and stretch the limits of medicine in the early 19th century. With the use of flashback, a dying Dr. Viktor Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) divulges a tale of gruesome terror to a sea captain (Aidan Quinn): As a medical student, the rebellious Frankenstein elaborates on the work of a brilliant scientist (John Cleese), successfully bringing to life a "man" assembled from the body parts of corpses. Upon realizing the destructive consequences of his experiment, Dr. Frankenstein abandons the creature and attempts to return to a normal life with his medical partner, Henry (Tom Hulce), and his fiancée (and adopted sister), Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter). In the meantime, the nameless creature struggles with loneliness and rejection from society until he sets out to track down his creator in search of one of two things: a bride to keep him company or revenge. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) was produced by Francis Ford Coppola, who previously directed and produced monster-drama Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). ~ Lisa Kropiewnicki, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 21
Number of Lists: 20
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 14 May 2009 00:04:58 GMTMary Shelley's Frankenstein1994Kenneth BranaghDirector <a href="/players/P____82784/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kenneth Branagh</a>'s interpretation of Mary Shelley's classic horror novel stars Robert DeNiro as a terrifying monster created in an obsessive attempt to defeat death and stretch the limits of medicine in the early 19th century. With the use of flashback, a dying Dr. Viktor Frankenstein (<a href="/players/P____82784/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kenneth Branagh</a>) divulges a tale of gruesome terror to a sea captain (<a href="/players/P____58261/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Aidan Quinn</a>): As a medical student, the rebellious Frankenstein elaborates on the work of a brilliant scientist (<a href="/players/P____85223/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Cleese</a>), successfully bringing to life a "man" assembled from the body parts of corpses. Upon realizing the destructive consequences of his experiment, Dr. Frankenstein abandons the creature and attempts to return to a normal life with his medical partner, Henry (<a href="/players/P____33864/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hulce</a>), and his fiancée (and adopted sister), Elizabeth (<a href="/players/P_____7266/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Helena Bonham Carter</a>). In the meantime, the nameless creature struggles with loneliness and rejection from society until he sets out to track down his creator in search of one of two things: a bride to keep him company or revenge. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) was produced by <a href="/players/P____85868/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Francis Ford Coppola</a>, who previously directed and produced monster-drama <a href=/films/4314/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Bram Stoker's Dracula</a> (1992). ~ Lisa Kropiewnicki, All Movie Guide21Tag Target (>10)2043http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t06301knqu6.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Mary_Shelley_s_Frankenstein/90095/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/29/35698.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/29/2008 6:01:10 PM
Body: It’s not definite yet, but it looks like Oscar-nominated actor/director Kenneth Branagh will be taking the helm of Marvel Studios’ comic book adaptation Thor. Most young moviegoers know Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart (from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), but he’s otherwise better known for primarily directing films of Shakespeare’s works. He also tends to cast mostly trained Shakespearean actors, although he has been known to include an Alicia Silverstone or a Matthew Lillard in his ensembles. Additionally, he’s been known for odd casting choices, such as Robert De Niro for the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Who will he cast this time in the Asgardian ensemble that will make up the film? It might not actually be totally up to him, but if it is, it might look a little like this: Kenneth Branagh as Thor/Donald Blake I know what you’re thinking. He’s old. But he’s only five years older than Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr. and only 3 years older than Brad Pitt, who recently was rumored to be at the top of Marvel’s wish list. Anyway, he’s cast himself as Hamlet, Dr. Frankenstein and Henry V. So, it would be fitting if he cast himself in the lead here, too. The only issue, of course, is that the script now apparently features Thor’s alter ego, Donald Blake, and he’s reportedly written as a med student, not a full-on doctor. Oh, and for Thor, Branagh will have to beef up tremendously. Or not. If he actually got away with playing the character, he could probably also get away with not giving in to the whole height and muscle problem. Keanu Reeves as Loki Branagh previously cast Reeves in the Shakespeare adaptation Much Ado About Nothing, and after more than 15 years, it’s time for them to work together again. Plus, Reeves is fully capable of being a nasty trickster and he should certainly be taking on more villain roles. Ian Holm as Odin Now that Branagh is linked to the film, past rumors that Brian Blessed already was cast as Odin make more sense. And Blessed is actually who will likely get the part, especially if Marvel is paying attention to the movie blogs and message boards today. But maybe he could cast Holm, who also acted in Branagh’s Frankenstein and Henry V. Sure, he’s way too short, and he doesn’t have that monstrous voice that Blessed has. But doesn’t he just have a more fatherly look to him? Brian Blessed as Volstagg With Holm as Odin, Blessed will then have to take on the part of this member of the Warriors Three. He may not be fat enough, but he’s loud enough. Another great choice would be Branagh’s co-star from Harry Potter, Robbie Coltrane. Why? Because he also played Falstaff in Branagh’s Henry V, and according to Wikipedia, Stan Lee likely based Volstagg on that Shakespeare character. Jude Law as Fandral This other member of the Warriors Three should be played by someone along the lines of Errol Flynn, who clearly was Stan Kirby’s model for the character. And Law, who recently starred in Branagh’s Sleuth, portrayed Flynn in Scorsese’s The Aviator. He may be too big a movie star for the supporting part, but Law should probably be demoted a bit, anyway. Kevin Kline as Hogun Rounding out the Warriors Three is this long-mustached fellow, and Kline, who appears in Branagh’s As You Like It, is always great with mustached characters (think The Pirates of Penzance and A Fish Called Wanda). Kline needs to be in a superhero movie, anyway, badly. 20 years ago, he would have been a perfect choice for a character like Tony Stark, but now he is due for at least a supporting role. Gemma Arterton as Sif She’s about to break out big time with the latest 007 film, Quantum of Solace, and Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla, which will put her in a perfect position to show off her Shakespearean talents and her other assets as Thor’s Asgardian lover. Emily Mortimer as Jane Foster If indeed the Earthly side of Thor is shown in Branagh’s film, his nurse and temporary girlfriend should also make an appearance. The best pick is Mortimer, who previously worked with the director on Love’s Labour’s Lost. Unfortunately, she’s more likely to be played by a younger actress, some flavor of the month a la Arterton. Robert De Niro as Absorbing Man The reported villains in Thor are Loki, Karnilla, Malekith and Thrym, but I’ll keep wishing for an appearance from former boxer Carl “Crusher” Creel. Not only is he a cool villain with cool powers, but he’d make for some cool special effects. Give him a cameo at least? And in the part cast De Niro, who could make up for his role as the Monster in Branagh’s Frankenstein. Surely I’m not the only person who’d like to see Bobby D shave his head and swing a wrecking ball around. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:01:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/29/2008 6:01:10 PMIt’s not definite yet, but it looks like Oscar-nominated actor/director Kenneth Branagh will be taking the helm of Marvel Studios’ comic book adaptation Thor. Most young moviegoers know Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart (from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), but he’s otherwise better known for primarily directing films of Shakespeare’s works. He also tends to cast mostly trained Shakespearean actors, although he has been known to include an Alicia Silverstone or a Matthew Lillard in his ensembles. Additionally, he’s been known for odd casting choices, such as Robert De Niro for the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Who will he cast this time in the Asgardian ensemble that will make up the film? It might not actually be totally up to him, but if it is, it might look a little like this: Kenneth Branagh as Thor/Donald Blake I know what you’re thinking. He’s old. But he’s only five years older than Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr. and only 3 years older than Brad Pitt, who recently was rumored to be at the top of Marvel’s wish list. Anyway, he’s cast himself as Hamlet, Dr. Frankenstein and Henry V. So, it would be fitting if he cast himself in the lead here, too. The only issue, of course, is that the script now apparently features Thor’s alter ego, Donald Blake, and he’s reportedly written as a med student, not a full-on doctor. Oh, and for Thor, Branagh will have to beef up tremendously. Or not. If he actually got away with playing the character, he could probably also get away with not giving in to the whole height and muscle problem. Keanu Reeves as Loki Branagh previously cast Reeves in the Shakespeare adaptation Much Ado About Nothing, and after more than 15 years, it’s time for them to work together again. Plus, Reeves is fully capable of being a nasty trickster and he should certainly be taking on more villain roles. Ian Holm as Odin Now that Branagh is linked to the film, past rumors that Brian Blessed already was cast as Odin make more sense. And Blessed is actually who will likely get the part, especially if Marvel is paying attention to the movie blogs and message boards today. But maybe he could cast Holm, who also acted in Branagh’s Frankenstein and Henry V. Sure, he’s way too short, and he doesn’t have that monstrous voice that Blessed has. But doesn’t he just have a more fatherly look to him? Brian Blessed as Volstagg With Holm as Odin, Blessed will then have to take on the part of this member of the Warriors Three. He may not be fat enough, but he’s loud enough. Another great choice would be Branagh’s co-star from Harry Potter, Robbie Coltrane. Why? Because he also played Falstaff in Branagh’s Henry V, and according to Wikipedia, Stan Lee likely based Volstagg on that Shakespeare character. Jude Law as Fandral This other member of the Warriors Three should be played by someone along the lines of Errol Flynn, who clearly was Stan Kirby’s model for the character. And Law, who recently starred in Branagh’s Sleuth, portrayed Flynn in Scorsese’s The Aviator. He may be too big a movie star for the supporting part, but Law should probably be demoted a bit, anyway. Kevin Kline as Hogun Rounding out the Warriors Three is this long-mustached fellow, and Kline, who appears in Branagh’s As You Like It, is always great with mustached characters (think The Pirates of Penzance and A Fish Called Wanda). Kline needs to be in a superhero movie, anyway, badly. 20 years ago, he would have been a perfect choice for a character like Tony Stark, but now he is due for at least a supporting role. Gemma Arterton as Sif She’s about to break out big time with the latest 007 film, Quantum of Solace, and Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla, which will put her in a perfect position to show off her Shakespearean talents and her other assets as Thor’s Asgardian lover. Emily Mortimer as Jane Foster If indeed the Earthly side of Thor is shown in Branagh’s film, his nurse and temporary girlfriend should also make an appearance. The best pick is Mortimer, who previously worked with the director on Love’s Labour’s Lost. Unfortunately, she’s more likely to be played by a younger actress, some flavor of the month a la Arterton. Robert De Niro as Absorbing Man The reported villains in Thor are Loki, Karnilla, Malekith and Thrym, but I’ll keep wishing for an appearance from former boxer Carl “Crusher” Creel. Not only is he a cool villain with cool powers, but he’d make for some cool special effects. Give him a cameo at least? And in the part cast De Niro, who could make up for his role as the Monster in Branagh’s Frankenstein. Surely I’m not the only person who’d like to see Bobby D shave his head and swing a wrecking ball around. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2008/9/4/34753.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 9/4/2008 3:01:41 PM
Body: 2pointsUncle MythMan says ... Through the cooperation of COX COMMUNICATIONS and FEAR.NET, we were availed of a free showing of Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. read more Originally posted on:mythman's Xombyte
]]>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:01:41 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good9/4/2008 3:01:41 PM2pointsUncle MythMan says ... Through the cooperation of COX COMMUNICATIONS and FEAR.NET, we were availed of a free showing of Kenneth Branagh's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. read more Originally posted on:mythman's Xombyte http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30740.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:01:44 PM
Body: Director: Kenneth BranaghReleased: November 4, 1994*****There's nothing wrong with a new take on a classic story. How many versions of the unkillable Dracula have been committed to film? As long as each incarnation keeps to the spirit of the original source, then everyone should be happy. But in Kenneth Branagh's vision of the classic Frankenstein something goes terribly wrong. Expanding a 71 minute original film (the 1931 version) to over two hours and incorporating elements from the sequel (1935's Bride)-and taking large leaps of logic-adds too much exposition without tightening the narrative.Victor Frankenstein (Branagh) watches as his mother dies in childbirth, leading him on a lifelong quest to uncover the secrets of immortality. By cannibalizing body parts from the dead, he is able to create a life (Robert DeNiro). But his love-adopted sister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter)-eventually convinces him to come home and live a married life. The creature, thought dead, wants to find his father...and will do anything to get himself a mate.Mary Shelley's Frankenstein almost feels like an homage the original Universal series. The Monster befriends a blind man in the forest-as he does in Bride. Another young child dies. Another lunch mob runs through the city. Just about the only thing which isn't taken from James Whale's films is parts of the action climax. (The mansion does get blown up, just as it does in Bride.) I hate to hold this film in all its theatricality and "over-doneness" to an impossible standard because it could never measure up. Headlined by Branagh and De Niro, the acting is uniformly better here than in the '31 edition; De Niro is noticeably scarier looking than Boris Karloff. But he's given too much dialogue and too big of a storyline for the audience to sympathize with. What made the original a true monster was he didn't express his views or emotions. A prologue and epilogue hurt Branagh's vision because it shows the bulk of the film in flashback, never a good idea. What the bookends do is frame Frankenstein as a pioneer, someone who did things no one else did. But again, it's a much too sympathetic look for the Monster. Technically, the film is beyond reproach. Sets are lavish, costumes extravagant and the music a bit intrusive. A good edit job is all that keeps Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from competing with James Whale's Frankenstein.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:01:44 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:01:44 PMDirector: Kenneth BranaghReleased: November 4, 1994*****There's nothing wrong with a new take on a classic story. How many versions of the unkillable Dracula have been committed to film? As long as each incarnation keeps to the spirit of the original source, then everyone should be happy. But in Kenneth Branagh's vision of the classic Frankenstein something goes terribly wrong. Expanding a 71 minute original film (the 1931 version) to over two hours and incorporating elements from the sequel (1935's Bride)-and taking large leaps of logic-adds too much exposition without tightening the narrative.Victor Frankenstein (Branagh) watches as his mother dies in childbirth, leading him on a lifelong quest to uncover the secrets of immortality. By cannibalizing body parts from the dead, he is able to create a life (Robert DeNiro). But his love-adopted sister Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter)-eventually convinces him to come home and live a married life. The creature, thought dead, wants to find his father...and will do anything to get himself a mate.Mary Shelley's Frankenstein almost feels like an homage the original Universal series. The Monster befriends a blind man in the forest-as he does in Bride. Another young child dies. Another lunch mob runs through the city. Just about the only thing which isn't taken from James Whale's films is parts of the action climax. (The mansion does get blown up, just as it does in Bride.) I hate to hold this film in all its theatricality and "over-doneness" to an impossible standard because it could never measure up. Headlined by Branagh and De Niro, the acting is uniformly better here than in the '31 edition; De Niro is noticeably scarier looking than Boris Karloff. But he's given too much dialogue and too big of a storyline for the audience to sympathize with. What made the original a true monster was he didn't express his views or emotions. A prologue and epilogue hurt Branagh's vision because it shows the bulk of the film in flashback, never a good idea. What the bookends do is frame Frankenstein as a pioneer, someone who did things no one else did. But again, it's a much too sympathetic look for the Monster. Technically, the film is beyond reproach. Sets are lavish, costumes extravagant and the music a bit intrusive. A good edit job is all that keeps Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from competing with James Whale's Frankenstein. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horror/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorror
Number of films tagged: 261

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 347

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT261110347Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violent/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolent
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 57

Number of times used: 153

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:06 GMT9757153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/underrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxunderrated
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:46 GMT13948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/killing/MemberTagFilms.aspxkilling
Number of films tagged: 7191

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT71913196Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag