Spoiler --- After Elizabeth is brought back to life and she realizes what she is, she grabs the oil lamp and smashes it over herself and bursts into flame. I thought that was great but then as she runs through the house everything she touches also bursts into flame. Within literally 5 seconds of smashing the lamp, the whole mansion is on fire!!!
share[deleted]
I thought Elizabeth's human side was reacting to the pain of being lit up on fire. Unless the mansion was created out of highly flammable materials, I thought that scene was really far-fetched.
Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"
Some types of wood and paint are extremely flammable.
See you in another life, brother.
It is great to read reasonable critics as yours It is something very hard to see.
This movie is great, maybe some people find some scenes odd, but thats not an excuse to thrash the whole movie.
But thats scene, to me rocked when I saw the movie for the first time, I liked the whole movie, but maybe now it looks bit odd though
Do you recognize my voice...?
yea, i agree. as she ran down the hall flames were exploding from the side rooms. i also thought it was silly how frankenstein and the creature were taking turns waltzing with her right before that.
shareI was fascinated by the fact that even though Elizabeth had her heart ripped out and was dead as dead could be, she was holding on to Victor's neck for dear life when he was carrying her through the mansion to his "special room". Then, when they get upstairs, she seems to remember she's dead, and drapes herself over him accordingly.
I love noticing little things like that. They make me smile.
Fantastic movie, imo. One of the better renditions of this story. I think Robert De Niro as Frankenstein was an inspired choice.
What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world.
Lol! I noticed those things as well.
shareRightBackAtYa..a common mistake. De Niro didn't play Frankenstein..he played the creature/creation/monster. Kenneth Branagh played Frankenstein.
shareI'm aware Frankenstein is the name of the doctor who created him. Frankenstein is so much better to call him than "The Monster", imo. I've never seen a Frankenstein movie where "the monster" didn't deserve a name. I've always had a soft spot for him so I give him his creators name.
It's bad enough he was the creation of a whack-job but to be known as "The Monster" is adding insult to injury.
The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around.
I saw the house erupting into flames as a metaphorical burning. With Elizabeth dead for good, Victor's old life has little burned to dust. It also represented the fire of revenge that would cause him to hunt his creation until the day he dies.
If I don't look at it that way, then I am forced to find incredulity in the scene.
[deleted]
That's melodrama for you.
This film was not intended to be viewed as a realistic drama. It's pure melodrama.
Another unrealistic aspect of the film: bringing the dead back to life. I think if you accept that part of the premise, quibbling about flammability seems a bit silly, yes?
Oh, don't try to justify it by pointing out that someone is raised from the dead. Shame on you! This is Frankenstein. Do you think Mary Shelley would have approved of that entire Elizabeth thing? No, it contradicted her novel. Even in fantastical situations there needs to be some suspension of disbelief. You discredit the entire genre when you insist one supernatural or far fetched thing means the laws of physics shouldn't exist and a unicorn should run by farting rainbows.
I thought the single most ridiculous scene was Justine's lynching: she drops twenty or more feet and her head doesn't pop off? C'mon.
--If they move, kill 'em!
Spoiler - I thought it might have been when Justine fell seven or eight stories with a rope around her neck and isn't decapitated at the sudden stop.
share