Rin Hoshigumo Initially, I found this adaptation rather slow-paced for my tastes, but having got through it, I reckon it mustbe the best adaptation; not because I've read the book, but because, for the first time, I'm inspired to. I never before thought that The Creature could have been beautiful. Oh, there was the film with Michael Sarandon as the initially gorgeous Creature, but that was an entirely different sort of beauty. Goss' Creature was beautiful, but in an eldritch way. It wasn't a reassuring beauty. It was a beauty that was all wrong, that should never have come into being and had all the hallmarks of its cadaverous inception. At times, Goss' sensitive portrayal of The Creature's anguish was almost too painful to watch. Scenes of The Creature's suffering juxtaposed with those of Victor's oblivion to it made me hate Victor in a way I never had before, to the point that when this suffering actually encroached on Victor's own life, I actually felt gratified. There was an understatement to the whole piece that made it all the more nightmarish. It clearly showed how people need to find a scapegoat and the dangers of playing God when one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being God. The sad thing about this story is that it didn't have to be this way. Each character made his own choices and did not have to respond to his circumstances in the way that he chose to. It's even sadder that they were blind to this fact till it was too late.

swede05903 Having seen all of the "old" versions of Frankenstein, I was somewhat surprised to have yet another version of this film arrive in my mail, a gift from my daughter. "See what you think," she challenged. Although it seemed to take a long time to actually get into the story, once there, I was captivated. Apart from the fantastic scenery, great cast and literary accuracy, one more thing held my interest. As a researcher of human psychology and abnormal psychiatry, this film (hands down) is one to provoke serious contemplation of what makes people do what they do or don't do. I have watched it twice already and have plans on doing so again in the near future; it's that good.

Boba_Fett1138 This movie is one fine example of dull storytelling alright. The pace is too slow, the character development is missing and all of the events are told uninteresting. But what else could you expect from a director who mostly works on TV-series and made for TV-movies, like this one.The movie tells the classic story of the Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein. It might be a faithfully adaptation but it certainly isn't a very good one.The movie is set in some kind of weird English costume drama environment. OK the result are some scene's with some impressive scenery but it doesn't really work well for the atmosphere of the story and it kills all the tension. The story never gets exciting or tense, due to the low pace, standard cinematography and weak editing. The characters are poorly development and I couldn't care more or less about them.The fine actors don't have an awful lot to do, with the weak script and directing. A bit of a waste of a great cast. And Luke Goss basically plays his "Blade II" role all over again, including screaming the lines; "Father, father!". His portrayal of the Frankenstein monster was not really convincing, interesting or memorable.Not a complete disaster to watch but most certainly not an interesting or recommendable one. This movie adds nothing new compared to previously made Frankenstein versions.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.