Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-17 23:42:45

sorry, mr trashcan

I am sorry that I said some things that might have offended one reviewer regarding this-here movie, I am so sorry. Maybe I even offended more than one, by calling kenneth branaugh an overly pretentious,artsy-fartsy bald-faced ham, and for correctly pointing out that deniro has about as much acting range as Rin Tin Tin; constantly playng the same role over and over again. I didnt mean to offend Rin Tin Tin either, by implying that deniro had his acting range. And I dont blame that reviewer one bit for turning me in so many times like he did, he loves this film so. I deserve to be shot for criticising it, thats what. I am especially apologetic over my assertion that previous positive reviewers of this flik couldnt tell a certain body part of theirs from a hole in the ground: I am fairly certain that they really can tell it apart from a hole in the ground. But I was upset to hear that the poor reviewer was so offended by that remark. I take it back. I dont wish to cause offense. But I bet I didnt offend even one billionth of a percent as many people as did kevin Branaugh, Robert deniro, and whoever ELSE may have been responsible for the travisty that is being called "Mary Shelleys Frankenstein". And THEY also offend the very author of the book; converting her classic of literature into barely-literate SMUT! Yes, I am so sorry. I am sorry that I ever wasted my time BUYING this DVD. I apologise to my poor eyeballs, that I forced them to stay open for the first 20 minutes of this film, when they so wanted to be closed. And I apologise to my poor trashcan -that I used it to deposit this waste of "talent" in: I am so sorry mr trashcan, you were my last resort though-bekuz the disc might have got stuck in the TOILET, where it REALLY belongs

MrX2848 2012-05-17 09:17:13

An incredible adaptation

Just to start off.... THIS IS NOT A REMAKE OF BORIS KARLOFF's 1930sFRANKENSTEIN FILMS! This is a surprisingly faithful adaptation of theclassic horror novel, with good ol' Robert De Nero as the monster. Themakeup is terrific, the cinematics are chilling, and the acting isincredible.I have one problem with (all) the Frankenstein movies.... they nevershow that Frankenstein's WIFE is actually HIS ADOPTIVE SISTER! Creepy,I know. It's just a minor plot point from the books that is alwaysignored. Cuts like that bug me.I know all you people who see Robert De Nero as the Mnsterautomatically believe he'd be bad at the part, but he delivers aMonster that is both scary and sympathetic. You feel sorry for themonster, not the scientist. That is a major part of the book that israrely portrayed.

max_byng 2012-05-16 08:15:11

I have never laughed so much at an attempt at a serious film....

This was just the biggest pile of s**t i have ever seen and i'mserious. Kenneth Brannagh was frankly embarrassing - please God someonestop letting him direct, produce and act in his films because no onecan tell him how awful they are. John Cleese's rabbit teeth werehilarious but by far the two most hilarious parts of the film were thelook on Brannagh's face when the monster tells him to meet him up onthe ice in a few days (he's thinking why not do it now????) and alsothe scene where Brannagh attempts to save the guy who taught him in theoperating room (the camera work is absolutely classic!). All in all iwould encourage you to watch this film but only as a comedy - if you doyou will laugh for ages! Oh yes and also check out Brannagh's Hamlet -the guy slaughters every film he touches.

Sky_Captain_Joe_Sullivan 2012-05-16 04:21:18

Travis Bickle as Frankenstein's creature.

Here is an interesting film. This is probably the most serious attemptat the Frankenstein to date: there's no Igor, very little humor, andalmost nothing but misery comes out of Frankenstein's creation.Director Kenneth Branagh plays the title character, who becomesobsessed with the re-animation of lifeless matter. Through much toil,he succeeds but is appalled at what he has created and runs away infear. Nothing good will come of this (trust me). I've seen only 3Frankenstein films; the 1931 Frankenstein, and the hilarious YoungFrankenstein. This film, although the closest to the Mary Shelleynovel, is a mixed bag. The film is a visual feast with striking artdirection and photography. As for the acting, Helena Bonham Carter ispretty good as Elizabeth but Tom Hulce is underused and I had troublebuying Monty Python alum John Cleese in a serious role. Playing theCreature, Robert De Niro is an odd choice but is able emit the emotionsof someone who hates their existence.Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

2012-05-10 05:48:34

Brilliant adaptation

The term "horror" for this film is quite a disservice to the film. True, it is horrific, but as with the book, I'd call this film a tragedy. Frankenstein is a tragic character in that he sets out to create a superior man - stronger, more clever, more durable - and the tragic irony is that he succeeds. If not for his hasty and careless aesthetic craftsmanship, he would probably have regarded his creation as a god. But he was so caught up in throwing it together, he missed details: the eyes were mismatched, the mouth uneven... if you watch him walk, you can tell that his legs aren't even the same length. Yo, Victor! "Measure twice, cut once!" Know what I'm sayin'? His vanity wouldn't allow him to see his success, only focus on the grotesque outward appearance, and was quick to dismiss him as dead from exposure.The creature's tragedy is that he was brought into a world of shallow sensibilities, and wasn't given any kind of compassionate upbringing. He seeks love and acceptance from a world incapable of granting either.Here is a magnificently represented tale of alienation - talk about Stranger in a Strange Land. Much is overdone, true, particularly the acting on the part of Mr Branagh and Ms Bonham Carter, but the lush look and feel of the film, and the emotional depth DeNiro achieves more than make up for it.And Patrick Doyle's score does a wonderful job of capturing the energy, the dread, the sorrow that infuse the story. I'll post a review on that CD as well.Curious side-note: In "Untouchables", DeNiro had a line to the effect that he wanted that dancing boy Ness dead, his family dead, and his house burned to the ground and piss on the ashes.Well, we didn't see the creature piss on any ashes, but what Capone failed to achieve on Ness, the creature scored on Victor, didn't he?

jpanettiere 2012-05-09 16:04:11

Not Worthwhile

The cover of the VHS edition features a film critic's remark that themovie is "Erotic", which gives you an idea of how far from the bookthis movie has fallen. In Branagh's defense, there are a lot ofdifficulties translating the original work into movie form as there aremany long passages of time in which critical details are summarized,also there is a lot of introspection and conversation that would needto be translated into something more visually compelling. There werekey details that Branagh changed, though, without good cause. For onething, the monster was supposed to be 8 feet tall and somewhat demonicin appearance. Branagh opted for a disfigured Robert DeNiro, presumablyto save on special effects (or to avoid hiring a basketball player toplay the part). In the book, the monster was quite articulate and wehave a better understanding of his wretchedness and his wickedness.Numerous comparisons are made between the monster and Adam from TheBible, also the monster and Satan, the powerful fallen angel. MaryShelley succeeded in simultaneously creating sympathy and revulsion forthe brute, but Branagh completely failed to pull this off. He alsoruined the romantic relationship between Victor and Elizabeth, which inthe book started as deep admiration and built with some suspense andtension until it finally culminated in their marriage and her demise,but Branagh decided to have them fondling each other more or lesswithin the first ten minutes of the film. The viewer is also forced towatch very exaggerated acting from most of the main characters (DeNiromanages to avoid this) as if they're trying to make up for the poorscreenplay adaptation by overacting. In short, the only sense in whichthis was truly faithful to the original work was in that Branagh tookbits and pieces of the original, breathed life into it, and created anabomination.

2012-05-05 22:54:56

A refreshing movie experience.

This is one of my absolute favorite movies, and after reading the book and seeing both movie versions, I felt that this one is the better of the two. Kenneth Branagh's performance of Victor Frankenstein is a bit pushed at times, but still manages to hold out for the duration of the film. Rober de Niro's performance of the monster creation is brilliant, and the make-up and costuming used to create the monster is well-crafted. As always, Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Elizabeth is masterful and empowered, delivering feeling to the film. All of these elements, combined with stunning sets and scenery and a totally mesmorizing score by Patrick Doyle, make this version of the classic novel a wonderful film, one that cannot be shaken from the mind once it is seen. This DVD is excellent, including French and Spanish language tracks, theatrical trailers, subtitles, explosive sound and vivid picture quality.

ma-cortes 2012-05-05 02:27:01

Stirring and exciting retelling of classy novel by actor and director Branagh

A happy Victor Frankenstein(Kenneth Branagh)enamored hishalf-sister(Helena Bonham Carter) goes to the University where learnssignatures of professors(John Cleese and Robert Hardy).He decides todrop out and continue his studies alone.Then Frankenstein attempting tocreate an artificial monster(Robert DeNiro) of his own.But he'screating a man made being but inadvertently giving him a criminalinstinct.Victor rejects him and the monster flees and after he swearsvengeance.The monster terrorizing the countryside and everything getsworse.Then he's coerced by the evil monster into creating a mate forhim but he begins a killing spree.The bloodthirsty monster asks toVictor trying to alive recently executed for give him a lover.The prowlstarts from monster birth ,continuing his revenge against Frankensteinand back again, until the end in the freeze Arctic where find a captainof galleon(Aidan Quinn).This is a stylish,brilliant and faithful adaptation of immortal,durablenovel.It's a well designed recounting of Mary Shelley's horrortale.Spooky images creates impact of numerous key sequences as in themonster creation .This is a good entry of the several adapted times hasmany ghoulish scenes alongside with some touches of romance.Althoughcreaky at times, but it's still breathtaking for its impressiveimages.Terrific acting by Robert DeNiro in his portrayal of the monsterwith a sinister and weird performance.It's an entertaining movie if youcatch it in the right frame in the mind.Spectacular images by cameramanRoger Pratt make this picture a real treat.Sensational,evocative scoreby Patrick Doyle, usual in the movies directed by Kenneth Branagh.Thefilm was nominated for ten Oscars but didn't achieve none.Highlyrecommended despite it was a flop in the box office.

satyren_1999 2012-05-04 18:30:58

This movie is absolutely Brilliant

This interpretation of the story "Frankenstein", with personalities likeKenneth Brannagh,Ian Holmes,Helena-Bonham Carter and John Cleese amongstothers is so incredible in its execution and dramatic flare.John Cleese,especially,makes a very memorable part as the mysteriousmentorProfessor Waldman,which shows Frankenstein the secrets of Life.And not to forget Kenneth Brannaghs characterization of the manic,desperateand not too forget intense Dr. Victor Frankenstein is completely withoutcompetition.It's in this part Brannaghs sense of Dramatical flare and theatricalintensity really comes into its right, and manages to put the madness ofFrankenstein into an incredible sharp relief.You get an understanding of why Frankenstein does what he does.. The Deathof his mother,the want to beat Death, all of these factors formedFrankenstein up to the moment where he creates and reanimates theMonsterAh, The Monster.. In all the excitement I almost forget Robert De Niro'sexcellent rendition of the monster. In his characterization the monsterisn't just a lifeless and soulless being,but a humane being withwishes,desires,wants and lusts..He feels and experiences everything with such a strenght and intensity asnoone really can describe. And he tries to adapt to a world which iscompletely hostile to his existence, even his Father he learns will notlovehim or know him.The Monster is like a child, trying to cope with emotions and feelingsmuchstronger than anything we can imagine or percieve. And maybe it is thatwhich makes the Monster so reckognizable?. Because he is us, and we arehim?

bob the moo 2012-05-04 14:47:29

Good but a bit too worthy and full of it's own self importance

Victor Frankenstein is the son of a famous doctor who watches his mother diein labour with his younger brother. As an idealistic young man he travelsto university to study to become a great doctor. However he brings with himnon-scientific teachings he has researched into life and the influence ofelectric currents. His belief is supported by shadowy lecturer Dr Waldemanand Frankenstein continues his work and brings a man back to life usingparts of other men. Realising what he has done, Frankenstein leaves hismonster to die but the creature learns fast and wants revenge for hiscreation.I have seen far too many monster movies that all blur together and share thesame focus on effects and gore than story or character. So when this waspromoted as being close to the original material, dark and more of a storythan a horror I was looking forward to watching it. For the most part itsort of works but it's main flaw runs all the way through it like a stick ofrock – it's far too worthy. Or at least it thinks it is. The film has aconstant swell of dramatic music that is only ever seconds away and itreally makes the film feel grander and more serious than it really is. Thefilm isn't scary but that wasn't a problem to me – it just has all these bigworthy dialogue scenes with sudden pauses (up comes the music) and thenlines. It doesn't work and the film feels heavy and even dull as aresult.This is never more evident than in Branagh's own performance. He is far toodashing and too much of a young man gone wrong to be believed. If he'dplayed it a little less worthy he would have been more of a human and less acardboard type. De Niro really tries hard and did well for me. He may bestuck with a creature but it has been developed past the cliché (but not farenough perhaps). I did feel for him and it was all De Niro's doing. Carteris miscast both before and after – far to light and modern for the role,Briers is OK but Cleese is way to miscast. First of all the fact that heonly appears half in shadows and when he opens his mouth the music comes updoesn't help, but it didn't feel like him. Quinn is a good cameo but themajority of the cast seem to have bought into the whole `worthy' thing andare dulled as a result.Overall the film is worth watching because it is a good telling of theclassic tale and De Niro does a good job of showing us the basic humanbehind the combined dead body parts. If only Branagh hadn't beenoverwhelmed by the sheer importance of what he thought he was doing and hadlet the film flow and bit more and given in less to worthy music, acting anddirecting.

jmcguire-3 2012-05-01 17:04:32

This movie was absolutely abominable to any educated person.

I am a high school English teacher who is in the process of teaching"Frankenstein" to my classes. When I rented the movie "Mary Shelley'sFrakenstein", I expected it to be consistent with the novel; hence, thereference to Mary Shelley in the actual title. This movie makes me internally conflicted between anger and laughter.The actual novel was butchered. There are countless scenes that arejust absolutely fabricated. The movie has consistent scenes which justdon't make sense. If you're going to refer to the author in the title,how about actually honoring the poor woman? Make a movie that respectsher story, instead of butchering it. Unfortunately, this woman isn'talive to defend herself and disassociate herself from this film.-Victor's mother died of Scarlet Fever, not during childbirth. -HenryClerval was a childhood friend; not someone Victor met at Ingolstadt(university). -During the whole novel Victor refuses to tell anybodyhow he created the creature, while in the novel we have all thisdetail. -Why the hell was Branaugh putting up a lightening rod in themiddle of a field where he and Elizabeth are the tallest objects in thearea? How is he able to count down perfectly to when the lighteningwill strike? Where did that scene come from anyway? -They played up thepseudo incestuous nature of Elizabeth and Victor way too much. -Themonster cuts firewood for the cottagers; he doesn't pick frickingradishes for them.This is only the very beginning of the movie and I haven't includednearly all the stupidity.If you read the novel, you should be disappointed in this sorry excusefor a film.

joliet-jake 2012-05-01 07:52:58

very good adaptation

I saw this in English after we read the book and I thought it was verywell done. We really see the torture the Wretech goes through in thismovie. It pottery's the book in a very god way. The movie is much moregraphic than i pictured the book but that is just me. DeNiro was verygood as the Wretch or Creature as it says in the credits. If you haveread this book or want to get into Frankenstein see this movie alongwith the original Frankenstein movie I feel this is a strong movie andis very well done. the acting is superb if you liked the originalchances are you will enjoy this. The story was great and this movie isjust as strong as the book so go ahead and check this one out seven outof ten starts

2012-04-27 15:22:45

Actually 4 and a 1/2

I don't know about you people but this was a pretty good movie but some flaws.The film was too fast I mean the camera would not stand still and it made the film seem soo fast it was like you put it in and then it was over just like that even though the film is 123 minutes.The love scene was just like any other scene in the film it seemed like Victor was on a schedule or something.Make monster,go back home greet family,go face creature,get married and make love to her.The film should have taken its time it should have had long moments just like in Bram Stoker's Dracula in which this film is a companion with.It should have had long slow more talky moments the film should have been longer it was all too quick.The score is very good too.Maby Kenneth Branagh should have just directed it and not played Victor as well I don't know.The film is good and bad its good on the outside but if you pay attention to the film itself its got quite a bit of poorness to it,but beside all that theres also lots of neat things to look at this also is one of the very very extremely few Frankenstein films that stays true to Shelley's original novel I mean the very first 1931 Frankenstein film was really not at all true to the novel at all,but this one is just like Bram Stoker's Dracula in which this one is produced by Dracula's director Francis Ford Coppola.This movie reminds me of Exorcist 2 The Heretic cause in that film they had all the best people to help make it and great actors but it didn't come out well somehow but it wasn't terrible.Anyway costumes are good sets are good and the Oscar nominated make-up is terrific.Anyway this is a pretty good film inspite all of the negative things that come along with,but its good none the less so see it you might actually like it.

2012-04-27 03:39:59

Hideous Progeny

OK. So... I applaud the creation of a creature with a voice, but that is where any similarity between this "flim" and the novel end. I spent most of my viewing experience suppressing the urge to yell at the screen (mostly things like, "THAT NEVER HAPPENED!!" and "WHY!??!"). I love this book, and I wanted desperately to love this film. I will try not to include spoilers (because I don't want to be rude), but some things just need to be said. First, the "creation" scene: the operation of the giant mechanical "womb" (complete with what can best be described as amniotic fluid), and the subsequent "birthing" of a naked, SLIMY DeNiro, would have been completely unwatchable if not for the same sense of morbid curiosity one experiences when driving by a traffic collision. In a truly faithful adaptation, there would be NO direct presentation of this event at all, as it is NOT IN THE NOVEL. Scenes and dialogue are added (and conspicuously removed) that make Victor Frankenstein much more sympathetic than he should be. In the novel, he actually feels sorry for HIMSELF when Justine is about to be executed, and is jealous that she will die but he will live with the guilt. This moment, pivotal to understanding his complete self-centeredness, is NOT in the movie, but a scene in which Elizabeth confronts him (never happened!!) and his LOVE FOR HER brings him home to Geneva (again, never happened!) is given an alarming amount of screen time. He faints constantly in the novel (like a Gothic heroine), but not once in the film. And while I don't mind seeing Branagh's biceps, Victor should learn to keep his shirt on. Even worse than these crimes is what BRANAGH (not Shelley) does to Elizabeth (about which I would LOVE to rant, but my promise to not include spoilers prohibits me) and the fact that any traces of the subversive political and feminist undertones that make the novel so rich are all but obliterated. Now, don't get me wrong: I love each actor involved in this film, and my love for Branagh almost borders on obsession. I loved Peter's Friends, Henry V, Hamlet, Much Ado About Nothing, and even Dead Again... but I can't love this film. I can't overlook the changes he makes in Victor's character; I can't overlook the way he "equalizes" Victor and Elizabeth; I can't overlook the way he sacrifices the epiphany and redemption of Victor as a tragic hero (a trained Shakespearean actor should know better!) in favor of cheap theatrics; and I can't forgive him for making me watch him grope slippery, naked DeNiro (some things you just can't "unsee"). Maybe if he hadn't called it MARY SHELLEY'S Frankenstein...When, in her 1831 Introduction to the novel, Shelley "bid [her] hideous progeny go forth and prosper," I don't think she (no, not even she) could have envisioned this nightmare of a film.

2012-04-26 07:26:56

OF POOREST QUALITY

WHY OH WHY IS EVERY SINGLE THING SO EXAGGERATED? DOES BRANAGH BELIEVE THAT SHELLEY'S WRITING IS OF POOREST QUALITY? I WAS SICKENED TO SEE EXCELLENT ACTORS MAKING TOTAL ARSES OF THEM SELVES.

2012-04-26 03:40:08

The BEST Frankenstein ever made....

This review is from: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Kenneth Branagh directs this amazing telling of Mary Shelly's original book. The visuals are amazing, De Niro plays the monster to Oscar calibur quality, and Branagh directs himself as Victor Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as his love interest. The best part of this movie is the fact that it doesn't shy away from the subject matter. It takes a head on approach, showing in gruesome detail what happens when man decides to play God. This is one that should be in your collection!

minthiadryhard 2012-04-21 18:00:04

great human drama

Frankenstein is a deep human story. I like this movie so much. Thereare many people who imagine a monster when they hear the name,"Frankenstein". It's easy to misunderstand but it's not a monster'sname. "Frankenstein" is the name of the doctor who creates the monster.This story,"Frabkenstein", is set in the 18th century. CaptainWalton(Aidan Quinn) of a sailing boat toward the North Pole help theman who step on a sled in a storm. His name is VicterFrabkenstein(Kenneth Branagh). The man begins to tell his strange fate.The man connect the dead bodies and give electronic shocks, then thebody has begin to move. He notices the importance of a thing as soon asan experiment succeeds and he leave the created man. After that thecreature goes to get revenge..... The lament of the man who create who a monster and the monster who werecreated. It's not just a horror movie. There is a problem abouttechnology to approach a domain of God, what's human being or what'slife. A realistic performance by Robert DeNiro(the monster), abeautiful heroine, Helena Bonham Carter, indeed there are manyhighlights. It's a really sad, profound, thoughtful human drama.Whenever I watch this movie I always feel excited and touched movie sothat is the reason why this is my favorite movie.

Hyokano 2012-04-21 15:55:54

Hardly Mary Shelley's and weakly detailed

Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of the original "Frankenstein" novelwas undoubtedly a new approach compared to all others. The idea ofmoralities within reanimation and the prevention of death especiallyadded to the depth and logic of the film. Unfortunately, the process ofproduction had weakly supported this element and the plot itself wasleft loosely without proper composition.Although the outline of the film was emotionally powerful, the cutswere amateur and the development of the story was unconvincing. Much ofthe acting, dialog, and sudden situations were too distracting towardsthe plot. For instance, it is obvious that it was intended for VictorFrankenstein's obsession towards reanimation and sustaining life was aresult of his mother's death, but there was lack of evidence in anyscene to actually support this thesis in a realistic manner. The samecan be said for the creature, whose motivation and anger againstsociety was extremely demonstrated in his violent actions without atangible cause for his behavior.Achieving compassion from the audience towards the characters is one ofthe most essential factors in storytelling. I can see Branagh'sattempts for drawing sympathy for both Frankenstein and his creature,but their personalities as a result of a traumatic experience isgreatly doubtful considering their ambiguous backgrounds, which wasvery frustrating to watch at my part. Under these circumstances, thewhole concept of the film remains unbelievable and difficult to acceptas a highly sophisticated story that it really is.A distinctive method in storytelling is clearly needed to support amore convincing plot for this film. Adjusting the story by cutting outirrelevant scenes and expanding the story by adding specific details inthe chain of events can be considered as a quick solution to thisproblem as well.Despite my criticism towards the main characters, I did however findthat Elizabeth's character was in fact convincing and logical. Thescenes that involved her and Victor were highly emotional and dramatic.Perhaps these scenes were even the highest points of the film. They canbe interpreted as highlights; the fact that each time Victor andElizabeth meet the true state of the current situation seems to emerge,helping the viewers better understand the characters. Judging from thisviewpoint, Elizabeth's character was the most crucial to this filmscoherence.From my perspective, the development of the plot was awfully rushed tomake a simple and yet profound point against the many issues brought upin this film. The heavy use of monologue is one of my proofs for thisconclusion. I have many regrets, however I do believe there is a lessonin this story worth learning about. I strongly recommend this film inthis sense, but not as a source of critical entertainment. I wouldsuggest for all viewers to lower any expectations prior to watchingthis film.

2012-04-20 19:31:44

Astounding

After reading some of the reviews on amazon.com, I was taken by surprise by the dissapointment expressed by some. This movie is one of my personal ALL TIME favorites. I purchased Mary Shelley's Frankenstein after it was newly released. I have watched this movie several times, and always find myself astounded by the tremendous effort that went into its production, including the landscape, architecture and even the soundtrack, needless to mention the talented cast of characters. Robert DeNiro pulled off a powerfully convincing portrayal of "the creature". Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but one reviewer said this would be a good rental for Halloween? It's my understanding this movie has nothing to do with the Horror genre, *not really* because it is more appropriately classed among those rare classic tales which have a_moral_to_teach, it is a powerful story about humanity, and in this case, this story would border on the argument about Science and God: Where does man draw the line? It is a compelling story, the best version that Hollywood has released to date of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I must give this movie five stars. I'd rate it six stars, if Amazon allowed for "extra-ordinarily superb!"

nicky_too 2012-04-20 13:05:54

Bad, bad, bad and sometimes worse

Finally I saw this movie and it's hopeless. It is supposed to be basedon the book, I heard. Well, half of the movie is not to be found in thebook. At some point it became so ridiculous I was actually laughing.The only good thing in this failure is Robert De Niro, who was verytouching as the 'monster'. His performance was very close to the book.He gives the 'monster' a heart, as it should be.Otherwise, don't bother seeing this thing. It's a waste of time and notworth the title of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. This is actually KennethBrannagh's Frankenstein.