CountVladDracula For a very long time I was on a quest to find a faithful film adaptation of Frankenstein that followed the plot and physical appearance of the creature from the novel. Just last week a friend suggested I check out the 2004 version of Frankenstein starring Luke Goss as the creature. Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised to find that it would be Hallmark that finally made a version of Frankenstein that actually followed the novel. The film from 1994 actually called "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" was not as faithful as the title would imply. It had the creature bald with a distorted eye and speaking like a stroke victim. It also had Elizabeth's heart torn out of her chest and then brought back in the style of the Frankenstein creature. For years after that I had searched for a version of Frankenstein that had a creature portrayed the way he is described in the novel. First let us begin with the popular idea of the Frankenstein monster. Everyone imagines the creature as a simple minded, green skinned creature with a flat topped head, and bolts in his neck. I don't understand the popularity of the "simple minded" Frankenstein creature. I know it was popularized over eighty years ago now thanks to Boris Karloff but think about it. In the actual novel the creature figured out how to dress himself (and that he'd need clothes!) in a matter of moments after his "birth". He learned to read and write (or remembered it) in a matter of months. That's equatable to an eleven-month-old baby with an adult reading level. He could read, write, was as articulate as his creator, if not even more so. He even had a favorite work of literature (Paradise lost). That's not a simple minded creature. That's a super genius in the making. I'd like to see more intelligent incarnations of the Frankenstein creature but not pretentious (as he was pretentious in the film Van Helsing). For good intelligent incarnations of the creature check out the 2004 Hallmark version of Frankenstein staring Luke Goss, Ultrasylvania (web comic / graphic novel), and perhaps to a lesser extent (because he still moves and talks like a stroke victim) the Robert de Niro version. Not only did this version (The Hallmark version from 2004 starring Luke Goss as the creature) have the creature physically look like, talk like, and move like the literary version of the creature but it also restored one of the novel's secondary morals. Everyone remembers that Frankenstein teaches you not to tamper with nature but most people forget that it also had the creature learn (a bit too late) that revenge was not the answer and that revenge would bring him no peace. In my opinion this was as important a message as that of not tampering with nature. So why do so many film versions leave this aspect of the story out all together? Why are only the inaccurate or incomplete versions remembered? It's not fair that this version of Frankenstein is almost entirely obscure.Here's where I am going to get a little nitpicky. It's a very good adaptation. The biggest changes deal with Victor's mother's death (in the novel she dies before he sees lightning strike a tree, not after). Also later in the story another body (after Elizabeth's death) is blamed on the creature in a village but it could be that someone died by coincidence that the creature (happening to be there) got blamed for it. Oh, and the creature's eyes. They're blue in this and yellow in the book. And Victor's father lives but seems to be going crazy. In the novel I thought he committed suicide. But these are petty details. This version is probably the most faithful I've seen. And the creature is VERY accurate.The creature is the best thing about this film. If you want to see the creature the way Mary Shelley intended him to be, watch this version of Frankenstein. Admittedly there are a few dull parts and some parts that felt unnecessary as filler and dragged on a bit but this was the most faithful adaptation of the book and is unfortunately highly under-rated. Luke Goss is simply the best portrayal of the creature I have ever seen.

omhn Frankenstein Review (2004) This movie is about a young man named Victor Frankenstein who lived in Switzerland and went to college in Germany. One of his professors taught him a lot, however the longer he was at college the more interested he became in trying to make human life.The first part of the movie starts off talking about his family as well as his friends. Than when he gets older it shows him making a person. They call the person that he makes "the Monster." It turns out that his creation turns against him and everyone else in the village because no one accepts him. He hurts a lot of people and Victor does the best he can to put an end to his creatures destruction.The setting took place in Switzerland and in Germany. I thought that the clothes of the actors fit the time and the setting in which this story took place (late 1700's). I thought that the acting was very good. I was quite impressed with Victor; he played his part very well. I thought that the rest of the acting was good as well.I thought that the dialogue in this movie was good as well it definitely fit the time period in which they lived. At certain points in this movie I thought that I was actually a part of the conversation that was taking place. The action sequences were so much better than other versions of Frankenstein. I thought that they seemed a lot more realistic as well as more intense than the other movies. At times you could really feel the emotion of the characters in the movie.I've personally never really been a fan of Frankenstein, however even though I didn't think the story is very good, the acting in this movie kept my attention. If you like the story of Frankenstein this is definitely something that you want to watch at least once.

meatcamp Valiant effort, but still not quite there. In trying to remain faithful to the book, I felt that this made-for-TV movie hit the key scenes, but failed in connecting them in the in-between moments.I just finished reading the book when I rented this movie, and I was surprised at how faithful it was to the book (except for a few scenes and a few additions). I also was surprised at how far Hollywood has strayed from the source material in all other incarnations of this story.I was very happy to see a faithful translation, but the whole product just didn't hold together very well. Acting was just So-So (from William Hurt's German accent, to Donald Sutherland (I pictured that character much younger in the book) seeming very out of place, to Alec Newman's portrayal of Frankenstein (and finally) to Luke Goss's 'Creature' not feeling like a substantial threat. It just didn't work. I applaud the effort to be faithful to the source material, it's just that something was lost in translation. Given a marginally larger budget and probably a more seasoned director, this could have been really great, but this version just sort of hints at that greatness.

vassal_handmaiden If you have actually read Frankenstein and despaired of ever seeing a good portrayal of the Creature on screen, then you MUST see this version of Mary Shelley's work. Finally, Hallmark has produced a relatively faithful version (changes, such as increased time for the love-story between Victor and Elizabeth, are reasonable and do not alter the original tenor of the work) with an excellent cast. Luke Goss' Creature is eloquent and highly sympathetic, with a beautiful, plaintive voice that is utterly convincing--as is proper. To demonstrate: my father has never read the story and is a big fan of Branagh's wretched film (don't get me wrong, I like Ken, just not that film), but he watched this version with me and exclaimed about halfway through: ''Wow, I never thought of the Monster's problem like that. Frankenstein is really horrible! Why doesn't he just do what the Creature asks? I mean, his life sucks and he just wants some happiness. Frankenstein is such a jerk!'' If the original message of the story can reach my father, then anyone who loves the original will enjoy this film all the more. William Hurt is very enjoyable as always, and Alec Newman does a fine job making himself less and less appealing (and yet more and more interesting) as the story progresses. (It's interesting how his unusual facial features appear as distorted as the Creature's on certain occasions.) All-in-all, a comprehensive and beautiful adaptation, almost sure to please anyone with a love of the book.