When creating a version of a classic like Frankenstein it is quite acceptable to alter some aspects, however there are certain things which cannot be tampered with and I am not referring to the laws of nature but the laws of drama. I can only assume that writer director Jed Mercurio was unexpectedly restrained either by budget or time slot and was therefore forced to make some serious editorial decisions. Unfortunately he made all the wrong ones. Frankenstein, like King Kong or The Elephant Man only works if there is an emotional connection between the characters and with the audience. Such a connection can only be made through eye contact (the eyes are the key to the soul). Consider how much emphasis Peter Jackson gave to the facial expressions of Kong and its startlingly human nature or John Hurt's eyes of John Merrick. In this version of Frankenstein the eyes of the 'monster' are hardly seen at all and this accounts directly to the failure of the drama. The key scenes are the meeting with the child, mother and son, and on the beach. All these scenes are rushed and thus create no emotion because we only see the eyes of one of the characters. When the 'monster' kills the little girl, (actually shown in full detail, there's a dubious first for British TV and indeed Film drama) the scene is shocking but not as effective as it would have been if the two characters involved had interacted like two children for a little longer. When mother was teaching son, there was no bonding at all, no emotion, no close ups of the 'monster's eyes showing any feeling. Just a cold grey lump of special effect. The final scene on the beach works at all because finally we see a more human side to the 'monster' and the most powerful scene was when we see the 'monster's' face albeit at a distance. Updating the Frankenstein story is all well and good, but abandoning the core theme of the original was a terrible mistake resulting in a disjointed and ultimately very disappointing drama.
11 Reviews
"It's alive..." I quite liked it actually.
poolandrews27 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Frankenstein is set in London where genetic scientist Victoria (Helen McCrory) is working on pioneering stem-cell research, however her young son William is dying & will die unless he gets a multiple organ transplant. Wishing to help her son Victoria uses his DNA in her stem-cell research, she sets up an experiment to genetically create the organs he needs. William dies & Victoria decides to abandon the research but her boss Professor Andrew Waldman (Neil Pearson) feels her work is too important to destroy & carries it on. Unfortunately the DNA starts to mutate, it starts to mutate into some humanoid shaped mutant creature. When a power surge cuts the electric in the laboratory the genetically created mutant creature manages to escape into the night...
Written & directed by Jeb Mercurio I quite liked this despite having little in common with Mary Shelley's novel from which it takes it's title. Made for & recently aired on British TV I suppose this got the go ahead after a recent spate of classic horror adaptation including Sweeney Todd (2006) with Ray Winstone, the six part series Jekyll (2007) with James Nesbitt & a feature length Dracula (2006) with David Suchet, however Frankenstein doesn't have any 'names' in it & has little connection with it's literally source. For a start no-one is called Frankenstein & for that matter the word Frankenstein is never mentioned once. Then there's the one basic aspect of the novel which the makers of this have seen fit to disregard, the fact that Frankenstein is a man & not a woman. Now, I'm all for equal opportunities for both sexes but Frankenstein is a bloke, he always has been & always will be. Then there's the fact modern genetic techniques are used to create the monster rather than stitching various body parts together which is fine in itself since this is meant to be a contemporary adaptation. At 75 odd minutes it doesn't last too long, it moves along at a reasonable pace, it's pretty entertaining for what it is but it stalls & falters once the Frankenstein monster is captured, there are too many mysterious Government secret service officials dressed in black & I didn't like the abrupt ending either.
This looks alright, it's well made but nothing spectacular. The Frankenstein monster is kept hidden for the most part, which once it is actually shown you'll see why. I suppose the look of the monster is supposed to incite sympathy for it but for most it will probably incite laughter, the actual special effect on it is OK. There's a brief nod to the original Frankenstein as the monster here has a paralysing device stuck into his neck which resembles the look of a large bolt! This is also one of the few films I've seen which actually kills a child on screen, not only does the monster kill a young girl who he tries to befriend after she rejects him (another homage or maybe rip-off to the original Frankenstein (1931)?) but it actually show's the monster breaking her neck in a sequence which just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Otherwise there isn't much gore or violence, a few burnt corpses is as graphic as it gets.
Frankenstein is an OK way to 75 minutes but don't expect a faithful adaptation because this is anything but, taken in it's own right it's decent enough but nothing overly special.
Written & directed by Jeb Mercurio I quite liked this despite having little in common with Mary Shelley's novel from which it takes it's title. Made for & recently aired on British TV I suppose this got the go ahead after a recent spate of classic horror adaptation including Sweeney Todd (2006) with Ray Winstone, the six part series Jekyll (2007) with James Nesbitt & a feature length Dracula (2006) with David Suchet, however Frankenstein doesn't have any 'names' in it & has little connection with it's literally source. For a start no-one is called Frankenstein & for that matter the word Frankenstein is never mentioned once. Then there's the one basic aspect of the novel which the makers of this have seen fit to disregard, the fact that Frankenstein is a man & not a woman. Now, I'm all for equal opportunities for both sexes but Frankenstein is a bloke, he always has been & always will be. Then there's the fact modern genetic techniques are used to create the monster rather than stitching various body parts together which is fine in itself since this is meant to be a contemporary adaptation. At 75 odd minutes it doesn't last too long, it moves along at a reasonable pace, it's pretty entertaining for what it is but it stalls & falters once the Frankenstein monster is captured, there are too many mysterious Government secret service officials dressed in black & I didn't like the abrupt ending either.
This looks alright, it's well made but nothing spectacular. The Frankenstein monster is kept hidden for the most part, which once it is actually shown you'll see why. I suppose the look of the monster is supposed to incite sympathy for it but for most it will probably incite laughter, the actual special effect on it is OK. There's a brief nod to the original Frankenstein as the monster here has a paralysing device stuck into his neck which resembles the look of a large bolt! This is also one of the few films I've seen which actually kills a child on screen, not only does the monster kill a young girl who he tries to befriend after she rejects him (another homage or maybe rip-off to the original Frankenstein (1931)?) but it actually show's the monster breaking her neck in a sequence which just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Otherwise there isn't much gore or violence, a few burnt corpses is as graphic as it gets.
Frankenstein is an OK way to 75 minutes but don't expect a faithful adaptation because this is anything but, taken in it's own right it's decent enough but nothing overly special.
Pro-Life Frankenstein
Cineanalyst27 August 2018
This British ITV-channel movie is probably too ambitious for its TV format. It generally fails to balance its divergent genres and affects, from broken-family narrative, to dangers of science parable, to corporate/government surveillance plot, to generic modern-day monster movie, and I don't much care for any of that, nor for the gimmicky camerawork involved to obscure the monster's face, the use of security-camera footage, or the oddly-red-letterboxed prolepsis introductory scene. The movie also tends to lose site of the story it's adapting, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," in its updating of it and the gender change to its titular protagonist (as well as role changes for other characters). Perhaps, I've just seen too many Frankenstein films since reading the book, but I was somewhat intrigued merely by such novelty and the problems it poses to the adaptation.
The 18th Century setting, its being written in the early 19th Century and that Victor Frankenstein is a man are important to the novel's parthenogenic myth of creation without a mother. Especially given that Victor's experiment was inspired by alchemy, as opposed to the science springing from the Enlightenment, Shelley's story may also be read as a critique of misogynist notions of homunculi. Because it's an update and because its Frankenstein is a woman, this TV movie must throw out this central theme from the source it's adapting. This is where it's partially clever.
As far as updating the story, it's mostly uninteresting. An opening title card relates the movie's world, which appears to be suffering from a volcanic winter, to 1816, "The Year Without a Summer," in which Shelley conceived the story. This is an unnecessary connection, and it's ignored for most of the movie. Additionally, since science is no longer a solitary endeavor, this modern Frankenstein collaborates with a team of scientists with the usual hierarchies of academic, corporate and government funding. Even "I, Frankenstein" (2014) had a partial notion of that, though.
What's interesting here is the gender reversal--or rather, it's interesting how the filmmakers handled it. This Frankenstein is mostly called "Victoria," her last name only being partially revealed in a shot of a burnt copy of her paper for stem-cell transplant research. She has a son with Henry Clerval, Victor's friend from the book, and the son is named "William," the name of Victor's brother. Other characters take names from the novel, too, as well as from the Universal Frankenstein films, including scientists named "Ed Gore," as in Ygor, and a sinister female version of Dr. Pretorius. As in the book, William dies, but not from the monster this time. In a conflict of interest so big it blows a plot hole through the movie, Victoria is creating organs via stem cells, and her son is dying from organ malfunctions. She injects her son's DNA into the created organs, so that they'll be a match.
Shelley's novel is an almost mother-less world, but this movie turns this around by making its protagonist the personification of motherhood, both naturally, via William, and, later, by scientific mishap. At first, however, when William dies, Victoria decides to terminate the science project--even though she already knows "it's alive" (which, of course, is quoted in this movie). In effect, she requests an abortion of the life she's created. The metaphor is heightened by the womb-like tank where the creature grows. It's a similar conception to that in Kenneth Branagh's 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Whereas Branagh's Victor acted out the creation scene with a fervor akin to masturbation and was, then, repulsed by what he created, Victoria looks upon the growth in the womb with almost motherly affection, but she injects the DNA into the tank with the scientific precision of artificial insemination.
Although William's death changes this, and Victoria requests an abortion of her creature, the authorities force the "pregnancy," along with the requisite assistance from a bolt of lightning, to term. As with the Universal series, the monster is a childlike figure, and this movie further references the Boris Karloff versions with a scene where the monster meets a little girl, with the bolts and flat-top helmet they place on him and by the windmill turbine that's struck by lightning. Initially, Victoria reacts to the monster, like Victor did, with disgust, but eventually her motherly instincts return, as she defends the creature's life. Henry also plays a part in the movie's gender reversal from the book, including Victoria's claim that he'd abandoned William in the past. Overall, this isn't too bad of a Frankenstein for managing to alter a story that's been rather patriarchal, whether as a critique of it or not, from novel and through most other movie adaptations, to this matriarchal creation.
The 18th Century setting, its being written in the early 19th Century and that Victor Frankenstein is a man are important to the novel's parthenogenic myth of creation without a mother. Especially given that Victor's experiment was inspired by alchemy, as opposed to the science springing from the Enlightenment, Shelley's story may also be read as a critique of misogynist notions of homunculi. Because it's an update and because its Frankenstein is a woman, this TV movie must throw out this central theme from the source it's adapting. This is where it's partially clever.
As far as updating the story, it's mostly uninteresting. An opening title card relates the movie's world, which appears to be suffering from a volcanic winter, to 1816, "The Year Without a Summer," in which Shelley conceived the story. This is an unnecessary connection, and it's ignored for most of the movie. Additionally, since science is no longer a solitary endeavor, this modern Frankenstein collaborates with a team of scientists with the usual hierarchies of academic, corporate and government funding. Even "I, Frankenstein" (2014) had a partial notion of that, though.
What's interesting here is the gender reversal--or rather, it's interesting how the filmmakers handled it. This Frankenstein is mostly called "Victoria," her last name only being partially revealed in a shot of a burnt copy of her paper for stem-cell transplant research. She has a son with Henry Clerval, Victor's friend from the book, and the son is named "William," the name of Victor's brother. Other characters take names from the novel, too, as well as from the Universal Frankenstein films, including scientists named "Ed Gore," as in Ygor, and a sinister female version of Dr. Pretorius. As in the book, William dies, but not from the monster this time. In a conflict of interest so big it blows a plot hole through the movie, Victoria is creating organs via stem cells, and her son is dying from organ malfunctions. She injects her son's DNA into the created organs, so that they'll be a match.
Shelley's novel is an almost mother-less world, but this movie turns this around by making its protagonist the personification of motherhood, both naturally, via William, and, later, by scientific mishap. At first, however, when William dies, Victoria decides to terminate the science project--even though she already knows "it's alive" (which, of course, is quoted in this movie). In effect, she requests an abortion of the life she's created. The metaphor is heightened by the womb-like tank where the creature grows. It's a similar conception to that in Kenneth Branagh's 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Whereas Branagh's Victor acted out the creation scene with a fervor akin to masturbation and was, then, repulsed by what he created, Victoria looks upon the growth in the womb with almost motherly affection, but she injects the DNA into the tank with the scientific precision of artificial insemination.
Although William's death changes this, and Victoria requests an abortion of her creature, the authorities force the "pregnancy," along with the requisite assistance from a bolt of lightning, to term. As with the Universal series, the monster is a childlike figure, and this movie further references the Boris Karloff versions with a scene where the monster meets a little girl, with the bolts and flat-top helmet they place on him and by the windmill turbine that's struck by lightning. Initially, Victoria reacts to the monster, like Victor did, with disgust, but eventually her motherly instincts return, as she defends the creature's life. Henry also plays a part in the movie's gender reversal from the book, including Victoria's claim that he'd abandoned William in the past. Overall, this isn't too bad of a Frankenstein for managing to alter a story that's been rather patriarchal, whether as a critique of it or not, from novel and through most other movie adaptations, to this matriarchal creation.
Solid and effective version that was better than I expected despite a couple of flaws
bob the moo22 March 2008
Dr Victoria Frankenstein is the head of science project UX which is using stem-cell research to engineer a human heart. The project has reached this point without approval and understandably the heads of the funding to be nervous. Victoria presses on regardless, changing the project to start the development of an entire organ chain. Nobody mentions the extreme conflict of interest that exists in Victoria's young son currently dying and indeed of an entire new organ chain. When her son dies, Victoria agrees to let the project be terminated but by then the funders want it to continue on the QT. A freak lightening strike and rampant cell growth sees the experiment explode anyway, with tissue everywhere. However it soon transpires that not all organic matter has been accounted for and "something" has made it out of the system.
This film sat on my harddrive for almost six month before I got round to watching it. It wasn't that I was busy for all this time but more than the idea of an ITV drama being any good was foreign to me and I decided to watch other things instead. When I finally watched it I must admit it was almost because I felt I "had" to and did not expect much. On the contrary though the film is an effective version of the famous story that is strong in several areas. The direction avoids the usual "TV" feel that many of these one-off ITV dramas seem to have and instead is very atmospheric and dark.
It is not as smart as I would have liked and some aspects of the material seems very rushed due to the time constraints, while others are all a bit too convenient in the name of keeping things moving and limiting development time required. However these are forgivable and the film does move along well, with plenty of dramatic moments and, surprisingly dark content. A brutal child murder caught me off-guard, as did some other moments, making it feel more than an attempt to make me watch adverts (which lets be honest, some ITV one-off dramas are all about). Although they are rushed the characters are quite good, particularly the monster. What it looks like is clear but, while the film controls direct vision of it, it isn't a big deal and there is no big reveal. This helps the viewer feel like it is the story not the effects that the makers are interested in.
The cast are pretty good. McCrory leads the cast well with a solid and pained performance. I would have liked to see her given a harder character and more time to work with but regardless she still does a good job. Purefoy is not as good and he feels quite unnecessary and I think you can see this in his performance. Support is solid enough and has a few recognisable faces in there in the form of Benedict Wong and Fraser James. Bleach's Monster is well played as it has enough to be afraid of but also enough to make you believe that it is just frightened.
Overall then a quite effective version of the famous story. It has its faults in the speed it does things and the odd "convenient" narrative device but mostly it is atmospheric, dark and interesting.
This film sat on my harddrive for almost six month before I got round to watching it. It wasn't that I was busy for all this time but more than the idea of an ITV drama being any good was foreign to me and I decided to watch other things instead. When I finally watched it I must admit it was almost because I felt I "had" to and did not expect much. On the contrary though the film is an effective version of the famous story that is strong in several areas. The direction avoids the usual "TV" feel that many of these one-off ITV dramas seem to have and instead is very atmospheric and dark.
It is not as smart as I would have liked and some aspects of the material seems very rushed due to the time constraints, while others are all a bit too convenient in the name of keeping things moving and limiting development time required. However these are forgivable and the film does move along well, with plenty of dramatic moments and, surprisingly dark content. A brutal child murder caught me off-guard, as did some other moments, making it feel more than an attempt to make me watch adverts (which lets be honest, some ITV one-off dramas are all about). Although they are rushed the characters are quite good, particularly the monster. What it looks like is clear but, while the film controls direct vision of it, it isn't a big deal and there is no big reveal. This helps the viewer feel like it is the story not the effects that the makers are interested in.
The cast are pretty good. McCrory leads the cast well with a solid and pained performance. I would have liked to see her given a harder character and more time to work with but regardless she still does a good job. Purefoy is not as good and he feels quite unnecessary and I think you can see this in his performance. Support is solid enough and has a few recognisable faces in there in the form of Benedict Wong and Fraser James. Bleach's Monster is well played as it has enough to be afraid of but also enough to make you believe that it is just frightened.
Overall then a quite effective version of the famous story. It has its faults in the speed it does things and the odd "convenient" narrative device but mostly it is atmospheric, dark and interesting.
Almost good
Snootz17 January 2018
This movie presents an interesting twist on the old story... but without the genius of Shelly's tale. It simply presents the original question: are there areas in which science should not venture? However it fails to answer that question, or even present it in a viable format. The name Frankenstein doesn't even apply here. Rather than a creation of intent this is an incident of accident. Lacking someone to blame then, the viewer is left with the question of what point the film maker is trying to make, besides the obvious. The answer at the end of the film is: none.
I do believe it's rather well-done as it stands on its own. The story is somewhat riveting once it gets started. There are some areas near the beginning of excessive slowness (how many scenes do we need of someone walking slowly toward an oddly unlocked-door?), but once they get past that stage it keeps the viewer wondering what is going to happen next.
What happens next though is that the story goes nowhere. Without spoiling the film, it comes down to the end with just a great big question mark... but no reason to ask the question. In the book there was no doubt: the doctor was the real monster (after all, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor, not the creature). In this presentation there is no monster to speak of. The doctor had no intent of creation, the creature has the mentality of a cornered wild animal, and the government (normally the real monster in such films) is put in a situation that it can only deal with things one way, and it does the best it can under that situation (in typically slimy covert government manner, of course).
In short while the film is interesting it doesn't come close to having any real impact, nor does it really make a point. As such it falls into the realm of "mediocre" in all areas of production and barely eeks out a 5 from me. The current average rating is even lower than that, which tells me I'm being somewhat generous in giving it 5 stars. The writers and director tried to make a point, but missed the mark and barely skates by on the name of the film... which has nothing to do with the plot or characters. They could have named this "Monster Among Us" and probably done as well... without raising expectations and lowering potential ratings.
I do believe it's rather well-done as it stands on its own. The story is somewhat riveting once it gets started. There are some areas near the beginning of excessive slowness (how many scenes do we need of someone walking slowly toward an oddly unlocked-door?), but once they get past that stage it keeps the viewer wondering what is going to happen next.
What happens next though is that the story goes nowhere. Without spoiling the film, it comes down to the end with just a great big question mark... but no reason to ask the question. In the book there was no doubt: the doctor was the real monster (after all, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor, not the creature). In this presentation there is no monster to speak of. The doctor had no intent of creation, the creature has the mentality of a cornered wild animal, and the government (normally the real monster in such films) is put in a situation that it can only deal with things one way, and it does the best it can under that situation (in typically slimy covert government manner, of course).
In short while the film is interesting it doesn't come close to having any real impact, nor does it really make a point. As such it falls into the realm of "mediocre" in all areas of production and barely eeks out a 5 from me. The current average rating is even lower than that, which tells me I'm being somewhat generous in giving it 5 stars. The writers and director tried to make a point, but missed the mark and barely skates by on the name of the film... which has nothing to do with the plot or characters. They could have named this "Monster Among Us" and probably done as well... without raising expectations and lowering potential ratings.
Fans of Shelley look elsewhere
stephenv231 December 2023
There are lots of things that don't work, but the biggest it's claim to be modern re-telling of Mary Shelley's novel. Very little of the novel is present beyond some surface details but the plot of mix the 1931 film and generic monster of the week type stuff.
It would have worked better to forget the Shelley/Frankenstein angle and just turn it into a generic creature feature. Then is might be passable and the many plot holes and lack of tension would be less painful.
There are good actors here but that's about it. Big letdown overall and not recommended for Frankenstein fans, especially of Mary Shelley's genius.
It would have worked better to forget the Shelley/Frankenstein angle and just turn it into a generic creature feature. Then is might be passable and the many plot holes and lack of tension would be less painful.
There are good actors here but that's about it. Big letdown overall and not recommended for Frankenstein fans, especially of Mary Shelley's genius.
A Frankenstein entry that will satisfy die-hard Franky fans, if few else
Mike E Monster12 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** This modern-day Frankenstein re-envisioning makes for an average horror, with too many elements conveniently thrown together, too quickly, with an ending that seemingly sets up a non-existent sequel. The monster looks more alien than experiment, as well. Still, solid performances throughout make this a passable Frankenstein entry with some genuine tense moments. The nods to past versions - the windmill, the death of little girl, the name of one of the characters - at least show its heart was in the right place.
A valiant stab at doing womething different with familiar material
Woodyanders7 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This BBC version of Mary Shelley's often-told tale of science gone wrong certainly has its heart in the right place, but alas it doesn't work as well as it could (and should) have. Changing the gender of Frankenstein to a woman actually works, for this particular incarnation of the obsessed scientist (well played with fierce determination by Helen McCrory) has an especially poignant reason for doing the experiments she does on growing human organs and tissue: She's trying to save her dying son before it's too late. Moreover, the resultant subhuman monster created by said experiments manages to be both grotesque and pitiable in equal measure. The supporting cast which includes James Purefoy, Neil Pearson, Benedict Wong, Fraser James, and Lindsay Duncan all do respectable work.
However, having the creature be partially the result of a storm that knocks out the power at the lab diminishes Frankenstein's responsibility for her own creation, which in turn robs the story of some of its power. In addition, the story takes a rather ludicrous turn in the third act with the monster being captured by some nefarious agency that wants to use it for evil reasons. Writer/director Jed Mercurio tosses in nods to previous Frankenstein films that sometimes feel shoehorned in, but at least Mercurio displays a pleasing affinity for the horror genre with these nods. The open ending that seems like a set-up for a possible sequel is pretty frustrating as well. So overall it's an admirable try at doing something different with the story that just doesn't hit the mark in the long run.
However, having the creature be partially the result of a storm that knocks out the power at the lab diminishes Frankenstein's responsibility for her own creation, which in turn robs the story of some of its power. In addition, the story takes a rather ludicrous turn in the third act with the monster being captured by some nefarious agency that wants to use it for evil reasons. Writer/director Jed Mercurio tosses in nods to previous Frankenstein films that sometimes feel shoehorned in, but at least Mercurio displays a pleasing affinity for the horror genre with these nods. The open ending that seems like a set-up for a possible sequel is pretty frustrating as well. So overall it's an admirable try at doing something different with the story that just doesn't hit the mark in the long run.
I think this is my new favourite Frankenstein version....
Manuel-Hoerth5 August 2013
I always thought it would make sense to set the story in modern times, since now we truly have the technology to do stuff like that. But more importantly (like Frankenstein) we are too obsessed with science and lack the moral and ethical restraint that would prevent us from doing such things.
So I think it fits great into modern times... but I always imagined a modern Dr. Frankenstein to look somewhat like Gunther von Hagens... (-; But I also like their take on it and the way they told the story it made sense to have a "Victoria Frankenstein" instead of a "Victor". And also the film of course by it's very nature of putting it in a present day setting naturally can't stay 100% true to the book. But still, I think it wasn't any less true to the book than the bulk of the other film adaptations and the ending was better and more realistic than in most other film adaptations.
And I love that even though every Frankenstein movie is always very different, they still always have little references to the previous movies. Like in this one it's the tank, which is very similar to the 1994 as well as the 1910 version. And let's not forget the infamous "It's alive!" line as well as the lightning, the electrical surge, the bolts and the cap. (those things are all references to the other movies, as they are not present in the book)
Anyway, go give this version a chance... you won't regret it.
So I think it fits great into modern times... but I always imagined a modern Dr. Frankenstein to look somewhat like Gunther von Hagens... (-; But I also like their take on it and the way they told the story it made sense to have a "Victoria Frankenstein" instead of a "Victor". And also the film of course by it's very nature of putting it in a present day setting naturally can't stay 100% true to the book. But still, I think it wasn't any less true to the book than the bulk of the other film adaptations and the ending was better and more realistic than in most other film adaptations.
And I love that even though every Frankenstein movie is always very different, they still always have little references to the previous movies. Like in this one it's the tank, which is very similar to the 1994 as well as the 1910 version. And let's not forget the infamous "It's alive!" line as well as the lightning, the electrical surge, the bolts and the cap. (those things are all references to the other movies, as they are not present in the book)
Anyway, go give this version a chance... you won't regret it.
Solid movie
ammonraa8 January 2021
Fantastic 10/10 ITV
dikhn28 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This Frankenstein was fantastic !!!
I was captivated all the way through.It was immensely poignant the moment on the beach with the parents and the monster.10/10 ITV and keep up the good work. Far better than all the BBC drivel!!
The bit with the little girl in the forest was quite terrifying but true to the Boris Karlof original. I thought Helen Mccrory was excellent as Victoria and I hope that they do a second part now. I especially liked the bit where they used Victoia's son's DNA so that they had a deep real connection with the monster.
All in all a superb modern version of an age old classic.
I was captivated all the way through.It was immensely poignant the moment on the beach with the parents and the monster.10/10 ITV and keep up the good work. Far better than all the BBC drivel!!
The bit with the little girl in the forest was quite terrifying but true to the Boris Karlof original. I thought Helen Mccrory was excellent as Victoria and I hope that they do a second part now. I especially liked the bit where they used Victoia's son's DNA so that they had a deep real connection with the monster.
All in all a superb modern version of an age old classic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
