Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
- buy from $9.99
Tomatometer®reviews counted: 9see all Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reviews
Top Critic Reviews
Rotten: Watching the movie work itself into an operatic frenzy, one remains curiously detached: the grand gestures are there, but where's the music?
- David Ansen, Newsweek, Monday, March 31, 2008
Rotten: As this movie switches, unevenly, from swashbuckling adventure to classic horror to frilly-shirted romance to campiness to graphic gorefest, there's no telling what you're watching.
- Desson Thomson, Washington Post, Saturday, January 1, 2000
Very underrated horror-drama. A little rough around the edges and uneven script-wise, but it still had me really captured. I can understand why it's not to everyones taste, but as someone who love movies set in the 18th century, this was right up my alley. If it wasn't for its wonderful cast though, I doubt it would have been half as good. It's a little weird also that they chose Robert De Niro to play the monster. He looks a bit misplaced in that role. The film also suffers from an "ants-in-the-pants"-syndrome. There's a lot of running around and the characters never seem able to sit still for more than a few seconds. Nothing wrong with a little action, but it could have been much more sophisticated if wasn't in such a hurry all the time. Another drawback is the poor editing. It's so sloppy in places, that you may wonder if the editor let a monkey play with his equipment. In the grand spectrum of things though, it's still a good and enjoyable movie. Just a bit messy technically and unbalanced in its writing.
- CloudStrife84, Thursday, September 30, 2010
While it is not the worst adaption of Frankenstein, it is nowhere near the brilliance of the 1931 classic. This film attempts at being faithful to the novel, but fails to capture its essence. While there are some decent performances, there are a lot of bad ones as well. It is not as imaginative as it should have been and feels planned out.
- ythelastman89, Sunday, November 22, 2009