Of the remakes of classic Universal monsters, Dracula was the best, then followed by The Mummy (which made itself into a franchise), then the recent Wolfman movie and at last this Frankenstein film, why did it do so bad?
shareFirstly, I think Dracula should be at the bottom of this list (Gary Oldman's, right?), but probably because of Keanu and Winona's performances. Well, maybe just above The Mummy. And the Wolfman. Okay, I think it should be second behind Frankenstein. Good list, otherwise.
Secondly, I don't think people could swallow the movie as it was intended. It's one of my all-time faves, and the book is a masterpiece, but I guess it just didn't appeal to much of the population. Besides that, look at what other movies came out that year. Of course, I was just a kid, so these are just theories.
[deleted]
The failure and thrashing of this movie, I am pretty sure, comes from intolerance to the half male nudity it has, and the naked creature.
Instead some movies like Bran Stocker Dracula are overrated becoz it has female nudity and thats "ok"
So thay bash the whole movie for that, they say becoz of changes, oh yeah, right, thats not a reason to thrash the movie.
It may sound ridiculous, but I KNOW that has a lot to do with its failure.
And you can see some evidences here on these boards.
This is the best Frankenstein movie and the first one portraying the real spirit of the book.
Do you recognize my voice...?
dude, this movie fails because its an insane, slapstick melodrama when it's not embarassing the hell out of poor robert de niro. how is a horror movie supposed to be effective when half of it seems like its shot, acted and cut as if trying to be a wacky parody??
shareWhy did it do so badly? The answer is simplicity itself: it was pretty bad.
Not ALL bad- but pretty bad.
The casting was bad. The acting was cheesy and overdone. It was over the top. The special effects were excessive. It just didn't work.
It's a two star movie.
stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com
stopsylvia.com
I saw the film the day it opened I knew it was doomed.
The reasons
Miscast or OTT acting.
Bad pacing.
Awful score.
The movie's budget was $45 millions and it ended up making $112 million worldwide...
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=maryshelleysfrankenstein.htm
Care to explain how is it that this movie "failed" when it made more than twice its budget?
Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan
It was a bomb in the US despite being a modest success overall. And most people here just look at the US when judging if something failed or not. Yeah, this is VERY biased. This film actually did rather well, but if it wasn't a smash in the US, that doesn't matter to many.
There are plenty of movies out there that did poorly in the US, but did well worldwide, and to this day are seen as failures despite not being a failure at all.
[deleted]
Because it's silly and over-the-top and just a huge exaggeration of a story that is actually quite simple. Still quite entertaining though.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.
And why all the bashing of the acting? Allright, Branagh wasn't that great. But deNiro did rather good, I think. Most people seem to think of him as a mobster/cool guy-kind of actor, but he has massive talent as a dramatic actor. And I think it shows here.
*******
They blew up Congress!
My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com
Poor acting, terrible score and corny dialogue.When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
I really wanted to like this film because I love classic horror and Robert DeNiro, BUT I disliked it intensely for these reasons:
1. I do not want to see and hear DeNiro channeling Travis Bickle and Don Corleone while playing the creature.
2. The creature did not have a heavy Brooklyn accent.
3. Branagh SHRIEKED AND SCREAMED all of his dialogue thus giving me a migraine.
4. I actually got sort of "seasick" from the camera's wild and constant gyrations, I swear to God it was never still.
5. I found myself actually wishing the movie was about Aidan Quinn :)
6. Branagh, Branagh, Branagh is such a HAMMMY ACTOR
However I adore Helena :)
The Mummy films aren't really horror movies. They are 'Indiana Jones meet the Mummy' adventures. Very likable and entertaining, but they aren't done in the spirit of the Boris Karloff or Christopher Lee films. Branagh's "Frankenstein" is too self-indulgent on some level, maybe too dramatically dark. It labors to be dramatic, rather than spooky. But it isn't a bad movie. "Dracula" by Coppola is more in line with the horror aspect of its story, and works more for horror fans as well as movie-lovers looking for a flashier style of film making. It is probably the last truly enjoyable Coppola film, other than "The Rainmaker" he directed since the "Godfather" films.
shareBranagh's "frankenstein" and Coppola's "Dracula" are not remakes. They are another adapotation of the same novels not remakes.
"The Mummy" (1999) and "The Wolfman" (2010) are remakes of the old Universal Classics.
Coppola's Frankenstein, is not a remake of anything, nor is this movie. They are new attempts to adapt the original novels.
This movie's script is terrible, the dialog awkward, the actors direction embarrassing, the overall tone painful to watch. People saying "very faithful adaptation" are either playing dumb, or never read the books. It's a very bad movie, one of those you feel ashamed to be seen walking out of the theater... almost as if it was your production. But then again, worse movies than this one succeeded at the box office. So , who knows.