MovieChat Forums > Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) Discussion > 2004 Hallmark version = Most faithful

2004 Hallmark version = Most faithful

posted 11 years ago by CountVladDracula
12 replies | jump to latest

Though this is a decent film it is not the faithful adaptation it's title would have you think.

Here. This is the version of Frankenstein that actually follows the book. And the creature looks more like what Mary Shelley described and speaks the way she described. This is a mini-series from 2004 and unlike the 1994 film that claimed to follow the novel... This one actually did.

Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew30jkv0ij4

Clip from the end where the creature quotes Paradise Lost (just as he often did in the novel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpV83uldclM

More clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCJY625xhHg

Notice how the creature actually looks like and speaks like what Mary Shelley described.

In regard to the version from 1994 that claims to follow the book. No. Just no.

1. The creature did not look like that.
2. He did not talk like a stroke victim.
3. He never ripped out Elizabeth's heart.
4. He was never made with parts of Walton.
5. He should not have been bald from the start, the creature never had the brain inserted that way. Read the book, people! Each layer of his body was added one at a time, skin and hair last. He's not a robot.
6. He did not kill Alphonse Frankenstein.
7. Elizabeth was never brought back Frankenstein style.
8. The monster never set himself on fire.

I tend to resent the 1994 version because people see the title and assume it follows the book and never know that there is one out there that actually does follow the novel.

The Robert de Niro film is not bad but they need to stop assuming it follows the book.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

I've seen this but I can't remember what I thought of it, good or bad. I just remember that Victor Frankenstein is the same actor who played Muadib in the Dune miniseries.

The 1994 version otoh left a huge impression when I first saw it. I never forgot it & remember several scenes from it. & I saw this as a kid mind you. I like the 1994 version best, & I also enjoy Coppola's Dracula.

Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

[–] CountVladDracula 11 years ago

The 1994 film is not a bad movie but it's not book accurate, not by a long shot. The film Terror of Frankenstein AKA Victor Frankenstein from 1977 was closer but for near word for word book accuracy, right down to the hair the creature had, the Hallmark version with Luke Goss is the more faithful adaptation.

It's not that this is a bad movie but too many people assume, because of the title, that it's the most accurate to the book and in all honesty it's not. It's a decent film, for sure, but it's not the novel. Mary Shelley would never recognize de Niro's character as her creature, not in the way he speaks or looks. He's a decent actor and it's a good movie but it's not what is in the novel.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

The thing is, if you've read a lot of books and seen many films, including very old films, you'll realize that films and books are 2 completely different mediums. What works on one may not translate well on the other. And I appreciate both seperately, as one should. The best one can hope for is that a film stays faithful in the spirit of a book, not necessarily pin point imitation of one.

But thanks for the recommendation, I had forgotten I'd seen it.

[–] CountVladDracula 11 years ago

The thing is, if you've read a lot of books and seen many films, including very old films, you'll realize that films and books are 2 completely different mediums.

Those who parrot this (often said by directors to justify their films) clearly don't have a cinematic mind and or cannot imagine the events of a novel in any visual way. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't. A silent film successfully pulled off Goethe's Faust and many Oscar winning films are faithful adaptations of novels so kindly leave that prattle for people stupid enough to believe it. Don't insult my intellect again.

The best one can hope for is that a film stays faithful in the spirit of a book, not necessarily pin point imitation of one.

And as Victor used alchemy and even sorcery as reference when studying in Ingolstadt in the novel that means the bald headed ("Realistic Brain surgery LOL" to paraphrase Branagh) stroke-style speaking creature is not true to the heart of the novel at all. There was no brain surgery. The creature spoke well, that was part of what made Victor so shocked when he confronted him. His face should not have been weirdly drooped on one side, there was no point in having the stitches go through the lips and when the exact look was duplicated for raising Elizabeth from the dead that jumped the shark and stabbed the heart of the novel with Branagh's ego.

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 11 years ago

You take great offense over a simple advise. There is no need to be so defensive about one's intellect. I wasn't insulting you unless you look for it. Some films are easier to translate, others not. You also have to take the context of the time period, the novel's subject matter or theme, and the length of such a film. I have seen many films that are great regardless of how exact it is compared to the novel. No offense, but you sound like you haven't had a lot of experience in either films or books translated. There isn't anything wrong with it, and it does not negate anyone's intellect. I'll let things go, we all have our bad days after all.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 10 years ago

Those who parrot this (often said by directors to justify their films) clearly don't have a cinematic mind and or cannot imagine the events of a novel in any visual way. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't. A silent film successfully pulled off Goethe's Faust and many Oscar winning films are faithful adaptations of novels so kindly leave that prattle for people stupid enough to believe it. Don't insult my intellect again.

Nobody's insulting your intelligence you jackass. Vicky_lc2001-1 is just trying to talk some reason while you're busy being dickish and pedantic.

[–] BlueMonday17 11 years ago

I agree to a point, but I would argue that this film does not stay true to the spirit of the book. Many changes in this film take away from the humanity of the Creature. When Victor uses parts from a criminal to make the Creature, and the Creature references his ability to play the flute, it suggests that the Creature's personality and actions are pre-determined rather than the results of his abandonment and mistreatment. He kills because he wants revenge on the people who have abandoned and rejected him, not because he has criminal tendencies. And, of course, the Elizabeth re-animation thing is just completely ridiculous, as it goes against Victor's character entirely.

The Creature's speech and appearance, though, did not ruin the characters and/or themes, so I think this film could have been saved with some minor changes.

[–] manchof1 11 years ago

The 2004 Hallmark version beats the sh!t out of the 1994 Branagh version.

[–] CountVladDracula 11 years ago

The 2004 Hallmark version beats the sh!t out of the 1994 Branagh version.

Well, yes. That's no to say Branagh's version is a bad movie but let's be honest, that mini-series is better and makes more sense in several scenes. Bringing Elizabeth back Frankenstein style was inexcusably bad as were the random and needless shirtless scenes.

[–] manchof1 11 years ago

Yep, Branagh's vanity was all over that. It also felt rushed and not enough time is devoted to the characters and their actions, especially Victor's.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CountVladDracula 11 years ago

Agreed.