Conference bookie::movies

I agree with Chris- 

As with "Bram Stoker's Dracula" of last year, this film should be
titled "Francis Ford Coppola's Frankenstein" instead of "Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein". Even though Coppola was only the Executive Producer of 
Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh has the directing honors), the production
values of the film outweigh the acting.

This is both the strength and the weakness of the film. There are dozens of 
scenes that are breathtaking visually, and unfold with appropriate Gothic
sensibility, but the extra millions spent distract from the core moral 
dilemma of the story. It is truer to Shelley's story than Karloff's version 
(or Mel Brooks' ;^)), but does change certain scenes towards the
more cinematic rather than theological/philosophical approach. A couple 
of scenes were more out of Spielberg than Shelley.

The acting is generally first rate with special kudos to John Cleese (in 
a straight dramatic role as Professor Waldman) and Helena Bonham Carter 
(who I though was a superb casting choice). Ian Holm, Robert DeNiro, Tom
Hulce and Aidan Quinn all are highly competent, but I was a trifle
disappointed in Branagh. I adored his Shakespearean performances and
direction in "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing" and had high
expectations for "Frankenstein". While his acting and direction are both
good, they are not as spectacular as in the other two films. His physique
and coiffure are shown off more than his thespian talents. 

If you liked last year's Dracula, you will likely enjoy this film. It is 
worth seeing, if only for the definitive 'Mad Scientist Laboratory'. (Yes, 
definitely OTT, but I loved it!) A large screen movie- though seek it out
at matinee prices. 

Gore Alert!- Much bloodier than Pulp Fiction including far more needles.

*** of *****

Cheers,
George

> $44M later we have this film.  They will NEVER recover enough to go into 
> the black.

	Never underestimate the world and after markets.  I believe even
	"The Last Action Hero" which was a giant flop and cost more than
	this film, made it into the black.

	The studios books I heard are also kept such that it will minimize
	profits because some of the actors get a piece of the "profit" (vs.
	a % of the "gross").

Oh, yes.  Forgot about that already.  Lots and lots 
of "hide your eyes!" bits.  Actually, I thought the
editing job was pretty good.  There were plenty of
scenes that would have been impossible if left
on the screen for an extra microsecond.

Nope.  Helena Bonham-Carter is a fine actor and well
cast in her role of a fiesty Elizabeth, but I didn't 
believe that she and Victor were anything more than 
casual acquaintances.

	I saw this Saturday afternoon. I had such high hopes for this 
	movie, and I was mostly disappointed. This was a 2 hour movie,
	and it really felt it. If I had this on video, I probably would 
	have shut it off, but I was with a friend, and I'm glad I stayed 
	till the end.

	I thought the first 1.5 hours were totally lame. I hated the 
	"friend / garden fairy"!!! I thought it was totally stupid. I 
	did like the last 1/2 hour though. I guess that's what I was 
	hoping the whole movie would be like....

	I never read the book, so I have no idea how closely the movie
	stuck to it. 

	I'd give it ** of *****

	Just my .02.
	Donna

When someone asked me how I liked the movie, my response was that I liked it, 
but that I could see how two people sitting next to each other could have
totally different opinions of the movie!

Then in yesterday's Boston Globe, where they show the reviews from many major
newpapers and magazines, some reviews were glowing while others showed
diasppointed.

I'm a big DeNiro fan, but I saw NOTHING in terms of him adding value to the
role he played. He's a big drawing card for me, but there are dozens of 
actors who could have played his role and my opinion of the movie wouldn't
have changed one iota. This was my biggest disappointment in the film - DeNiro
personally adding very little to the character he played.

Unlike a previous reply, I though the movie went by rather quick!

Overall, I gave it a B+ but I wouldn't be at all surprised, based on the
crowds reaction, if grades ranged from A to D. A few folks left before the
ending! Others left agasp.

Paul

    
    Leonard Maltin's review was really negative on this film.Sounds like 
    he was right. 
    
    He termed DeNiro as being more like Freddie Kruger, than the
    Frankenstein of the early films.
    
    Guess I'll wait for the video
    
              

  I thought it was pretty good. As others have said, there were some scenes
that were brilliantly done while in other places, particularly the beginning,
it dragged a bit. The filming was excellent and the lab was very well done. 

  One criticism that's going around is that it is overacted. Yes it is, but I
believe that this is more a matter of style resulting from a deliberate
attempt at 19th century romanticisism. 

  I didn't feel it was all that gory. Yes there are a couple bloody scenes, but
compared to other stuff that's out today it wasn't that bad. It is, after all,
one of the classic monster stories of all time so a certain amount of gore is
appropriate. 

  Some holes, some thrilling scenes, some touching moments, some scenes drag a
bit but it holds together. 

  See it on the big screen,
  *** out of 5
  George

>>  One criticism that's going around is that it is overacted. Yes it is, but I

	standard operation procedure for K.B.

A visually striking film (not as much as _Bram Stoker's Dracula_ but what is?),
generally well acted. It's over the top at times but that's the kind of story
this is, I can't imagine that an attempt to make a subtle Frankenstein would
be very successful. The script had it's weaknesses, some definate lapses in
logic. 







SPOILER WARNING***********




















Very intense in parts, during the "bringing Elizabeth back to life" scene my
date became physically ill. We had to leave the theatre for a few minutes
until she recovered.


Randy

I have a quick question...


SPOILER WARNING***********




How do you suppose he got that much embryonic fluid (especially on such 
short notice when he was "reconstructing" Elizabeth)? I saw how he got 
some, but that was a huge sack hanging from the ceiling...I thought it
was totally gross when they were slipping and sliding around in it...yuck.

Donna

  I had the impression that




SPOILER WARNING***********




  ... the fluid was a combination of embryonic fluid and other materials.

  George

    ..embrionic fluid and Scotch...makes a great mix!
    Well, perhaps I enjoy classic horror and subsequent attempts to
    recreate the genre, but we absolutely LOVED this movie! I would
    highly reccommend it to fans of the genre as well...although i'm
    the guy who loved the old Hammer House of Horror flix (and anything
    with Peter Cushing in it!)...take that for what it's worth...
    
    **** out of *****
    
    mac
    

I haven't read Shelley's book, but I wonder how she can possibly be serious.  
How can she take on both immortality and creation at once? Why not simply 
grow life in the test tube?  From a snip of hair or spare toenail.  Must 
Victor Frankenstein raise the dead while he's at it?  It's quite a fetch.

On film, Victor has other troubles, because the monster steals the show.  
And worse.  Over 60 years ago, the Boris Karloff monster escaped and ran 
off with the story.  He's been out there ever since, lurking in pop culture, 
popping up like Elvis all the time. Kenneth Brannagh thought he'd capture 
the beast, and get the story back.  But the monster has a mind of its own.

This film is SO bad, and it's Branagh, not the monster, who wrecks it.  
Branagh seems to think he can tell a tall tale just by pumping it up with 
energy.  The camera spins and swoops as the music unloads multiple broadside 
salvos.  It could have been fun, if Branagh hadn't been so serious about it.
He wants to teach a stern lesson about the arrogance of science and blind 
ambition, with the agony of loss.  

But the monster wants to boogey.  He appears at Branagh's doorstep
as, of all things, a grouchy teenager, angry at Dad and lonely for a mate.
The latest sighting, I might add.  And, gladly, not the last.

Brian

    It felt like a reeeeaaalllllyyyy long epsiode of Masterpiece Theatre
    that just didn't know when to end. I totally agree with .13 ...
    KB got carried away with this one...

Now I KNOW I didn't like it; Julie Burchill of the
_Times_ (London) did!  I couldn't possibly share an 
opinion with this particular critic.  What I find rather 
bizarre (in addition to the facts that she LIKED the
film and found it to be sexy, when she hates Branagh
and Thompson) is that the _Guardian_ reviewer ALSO 
liked it.  Can one of the UK noters tell us if this
was a trend, or a blip in the set of UK reviews?  The
US critics have more or less all panned it.

Chris

The Boston Globe gave it three and a half stars (out of four).

				-- Bob

    The reviews I read here in the UK, basically trashed the movie...
    which, unfortunately, was not enough to put me off going to see the
    film for myself.
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen

    > I haven't read Shelley's book, but I wonder how she can possibly be
    > serious. How can she take on both immortality and creation at once?
    
    Actually, at first, she was not serious. Frankenstein's Monster came
    about as a summertime whim when she and her husband, the famous poet
    Percy Shelley, were staying for the season at a friend's house. The
    three of them decided that they would each write a horror story, then
    tell it to the others during the course of the summer. Only Mary
    finished hers, then expanded it into a full book over the following
    years. Since she finished it after her husband's death, which was
    emotionally devastating to her, it is little wonder that it's an
    unrelentingly dark story.
    
    > Why not simply grow life in the test tube?  From a snip of hair or
    > spare toenail.  Must Victor Frankenstein raise the dead while he's at it?
    
    That sounds a lot like cloning, which certainly was not known in the
    early 19th century when Frankenstein was written. And though the story
    is classed as horror, it might more accurately be termed primitive
    science fiction. Frankenstein discovered how to imbue a dead body with
    life by scientific means; growing an entire person out of a small
    "cutting" would, in the 1820's, have smacked of magic.
    
    At that time, although science was beginning to shape how people
    thought, many of their concepts were still grounded in religion. Mary
    Shelley, and many of her age, felt that live itself was a force or a
    spark; and if one could find a way to introduce that spark into dead
    matter, it would once again live. That was the point of Frankenstien,
    as well as the lesson that there are some forces with which man was not
    meant to meddle.
    
    It's interesting that Mary Shelley was an indifferent writer while her
    husband was one of the most acclaimed poets of his time. I think
    Frankenstein's Monster was her only significant work. Yet today, her
    creation is far more familiar to most of us than Shelley's poems.
    
    From what I've heard, the movie does deviate from the book in places.
    The "garden fairy" bit, however, *is* from the book.
    Good or bad, I guess I've got to see it. 
    			Jim
    

>The Boston Globe gave it three and a half stars (out of four).

But it got panned by:
	Boston Phoenix
	N.Y. Times
	People
	Time
	Newsweek
	New Yorker
	Village Voice
	L.A. Times

I guess I'll wait for the video....

    I have to say I enjoyed watching this movie, but I don't think I'd
    enjoy watching it a second time. What appeared to me as interesting or
    tolerable would no doubt come across to me as boring a second time...
    
    Michael
    

    Most of the reviews did pan the movie as an earlier note pointed out.
    However, I believe the movie did have its redeeming aspects, certainly
    a few scenes like the one of the hilltop where Kenneth gets "struck" by
    lightning and the scene at the University were interestingly filmed, if
    only for the sheer energy displayed by Kenneth. The guy was serious and
    believed it was his duty to "create", although what he ended up with
    was a sorry disappointment. 
    
    I think the movie degenerates a little when the actual "monster" is
    built, too many disparate body parts, a stitched up head and face ? And
    yecch ! tons of gooey fluid and other disgusting sights.. I believe if
    those scenes had been less graphic and the monster shown in shadow as
    opposed to stitches and all, the movie might have done better. I don't
    think it mattered at all that DeNiro chose to play the monster. Have
    the monster in shadow and get the powerful voice of the one and only
    James Earl Jones, the effect would have been far more sinister.
    
    I think it's disturbing how the need is to just show everything just
    because the medium of expression happens to be visual, a film.
    Hitchcock shot terrifying scenes without the aid of graphic visuals as
    he left it to each individual's imagination to create his own, private
    horror.
    
    Instead of horror, the most overwhelming emotion in that movie was
    disgust.. how could they stand it ? all that gooey stuff...

    
    	James Earl Jones?  I don't think so.
    
    	His voice is too good for that part.
    
    							GTI
    

    I saw this Saturday night on video and it was one of the most
    boring movies I think I've ever seen.  
    
    As has been said in previous replies, there was zero chemistry between
    Branagh and Bonham-Carter, wasted performances by Ian Holm and Robert
    DeNiro, and OTT effects.  I don't know if it was just me, but I don't
    think there was enough character development, and the result was that 
    I didn't care what happened to these folks.
    
    I did like the rich visuals and Cheri Lunghi's all too short
    appearance.  Unfortunately, that's about it.
    
    Sue
    

    I happened to rent this on the local pay per view, so I had the luxury
    of flipping to another show when this movie got boring :-), but it is
    unfortunate that I flipped during two important happenings. Could
    someone please enlighten me on the following
    
    
    Why did the townspeople hang Justine? Did they think she killed the
    boy?
    
    And also, how did Elizabeth die? I flipped and she was alive, next time
    I turned back Victor was sewing her back together again.
    
    Thanks,
    Kim

    Spoiler ..
    
    
    
    Yes, they thought she killed the boy because they found something of
    the boy's in her possession.  (The monster killed the boy, then took
    his piece of jewelry [I think it was], and left it on Justine when he
    found her sleeping in the barn).
    
    Elizabeth and Victor were ready to go to bed on their wedding night
    when Victor left the room thinking the monster was near.  The monster
    was *in* their room on top of the canopy, fell on Elizabeth, they
    wrestled to the floor, and the monster punched a hole in her chest and 
    ripped out her heart.  The room caught fire, she was burned, but 
    Vicotr took her body and tried to bring her back to life.  That's
    why she looked the way she did, when he was trying to "resurrect"
    her.
    
    Sue

    I rented this last night because it was touted to be close to the book
    version.  So I was quite surprised when the monster was presented as
    average human size.  It's been more than 20 years since I read the book
    but from my recollection, Frankenstein decided to build a large prototype 
    (8 ft tall) because of difficulties encountered in putting together
    some of the smaller human parts.
    
    Bong

    > Frankenstein decided to build a large prototype (8 ft tall) ...
    You're right, but there are probably not many 8' tall actors hanging
    around. This and other replies show that the movie does deviate from
    the book in significant ways.
    
    There was a made-for-TV version called "Frankenstein: The True Story"
    in the '70's. It was a compelling story, very believable, and many miles
    above the old bolts-in-the-neck movies about Frankenstein's monster. 
    Yet despite its implied claim, it deviated even further from the original
    story.
    
    Though I have stopped expecting it, I feel that a movie should follow
    the book on which it is based pretty closely. It's only fair to the
    author; and after all, if a book was successful enough to inspire a movie,
    one would suspect the plot is good enough not to need major changes. Is
    this a quaint and antiquated notion?
    				Jim
    
    <spoiler>
    
    
    Franky would not have tried to bring Elizabeth back to life. By that
    time he had only loathing for the idea of trying to
    animate dead tissue. Also, that's just what he was doing: animating,
    not resurrecting. The monster had no idea of his previous identity. Nor
    would the animated body of Elizabeth have actually been Elizabeth.
    It is not mentioned in the original; nor is the
    notion that the monster tried to frame anyone for the death of the boy
    (am assuming this refers to Victor Frankenstein's younger brother).

>    Though I have stopped expecting it, I feel that a movie should follow
>    the book on which it is based pretty closely. It's only fair to the
>    author; and after all, if a book was successful enough to inspire a movie,
>    one would suspect the plot is good enough not to need major changes. IS
>    THIS A QUAINT AND ANTIQUATED NOTION?

I don't know about quaint or antiquated, but "unreasonable" and "impractical"
do come to mind.  
I have never seen a written work longer than a long short story
or a novella successfully translated to a single film.
A well-written novel normally has so many interconnections among
plot lines, characters, and venues that drastic disconnects need to be made.
To turn these novels into comprehensible movies, things have be compromised.
Several characters get rolled into single characters, plot lines get dropped
(leaving rationalization of other events unfounded), time gets compressed.
What should be left is what the screen writer feels is the essence
of the written work, which may not be plot or character or rationalization
or whatever else a fan of the original work may have appreciated most.

I've long since lowered my expectations about written-to-cinematic fidelity.

- tom]

    > I have never seen a written work longer than a long short story
    > or a novella successfully translated to a single film.
    
    "Silence of the Lambs" was a great book, a great movie, and a very
    smooth transition. I could probably think of others. But you're right,
    these are the exceptions. Most movies based on book XXX should be
    titled "Spielberg's Interpretation of XXX", or "Rhapsody on a Theme
    from XXX", etc. In which case we should judge it in its own right.
    
    Still, if a producer wants to benefit from the free publicity boost and
    increasted chance of success afforded by borrowing title and concepts
    from another medium (book, old TV show, etc)., (s)he must be prepared
    to be compared to the comparison. Also, when one has a preconceived
    idea of how a story line proceeds, it is jarring to see the movie
    deviate from it, so (except in the rare case that the change is a
    substantial improvement) enjoyment in the movie suffers. Maybe this is
    unjust, but that's the dues they pay.
    				Jim B.