I am korean.
Korean speaks very highly of this movie.
The whole section was full of well-made films.
1)This film is true to the original (the book)
2)Great writing and a gripping story - The film follows the story with almost complete fidelity.
3)This actor delivers a fine performance
4)It is a very interesting film.
5)Coordination of horror and strong impression
I cannot guess what Internet users are driving at.
What more do you want?
This film is NOT a masterpiece and the main reason is that it does NOT stay true to the book, Mary Shelley's original story. The story Mary Shelley wrote is a masterpiece.
shareThis is far from a masterpiece.... the scene where Elizabeth dances with Frankenstein after she is revived from death is truly laughable and it only gets worse when she sets herself on fire.
Also Brannagh chews and spits out the script like a rotten piece of ham.
[deleted]
The only great thing was De Niro's scenes. The lead who plays Dr. Frank is pathetic and many parts of the script were corny. Music didn't help. At times music was trying to say something truly grand and epic happening, but it wasn't so - making it look silly. Tim Burton's wife is horrible in everything, but now theres a v2 online that girl from Twilight (similar look). If not for De Niro I'd say this movie totally blows. Ice cave scene with De Niro - every word he utters jerks an eyelid. Masterpiece? Maybe for kids - I had fond memories until I rewatched it today.
share1- that's the problem a movie shouldn't be that true to the book, that's why the scenes where so separated from each others and didn't relate or make sense.
2- the story is interesting but the translation to a movie failed.
3- no he was over acting, i thought this movie was filmed in 1940!
4- interesting story but annoying movie.
5- no horror and melodrama.
i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification