Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

GL84 Rescued out in the middle of a blizzard, a scientist recounts for the crew of his saviours how his past experiments on instilling life to the dead resulted in the creation of a being made from dead body parts hounded him and his family and forcing him to stop it.Overall this one was quite the troublesome and incredibly problematic mini-series that isn't all that enjoyable. The biggest problem here is the fact of it being so obviously and utterly intent on following the original novel, which in turn results in a pace that it just mind-numbingly bland and flat-out boring. Continuously spouting off completely banal methods for scientific processes and bland religious debates that end before they start are featured so prominently in the first half leaves this one will such a dull, lagging pace that it stumbles over itself before even starting by getting a pace so bland and impossible to rile up any kind of interest here that regardless of how well it sets up the ill- mannered nature of his obsession the lack of interest is such that it doesn't really offer much of a chance to get going until he brings the creature to life so late in the first half. This here is mainly due to how closely this one manages to follow the storyline of the book and getting everything set-up so intently that there's almost no horror at all in this one, even during the second half when the creature escapes out into the wild, and as those are all about him as the sympathetic force in an unknown landscape there's little about it that generates any kind of fear or suspense at his actions with it spending the majority of the time doing little of any interest.with this one so fascinated with the bland story lines about his obsession and the search throughout the woods. While this indeed holds back the first half with some overly-long scenes that just go nowhere, the second half does manage to go for a few more enjoyable bits of action namely from his confrontation at the church ruins and the confrontation at his cabin in the woods. Even beyond these points, there's still a lot wrong with the second half that's even more egregious than the first, with the sympathetic wailing of the monster inspiring derision more than any kind of actual fear, the consequences of his actions against the creature unleashing nothing but shallow melodrama and once against filled with an incredibly long and bland section which doesn't have any interest in anything with it not feeling at all like a horror film for much of this section. With an underwhelming and completely uninspiring finale also making this quite a downbeat effort, this overall isn't all that impressive a miniseries.Rated Unrated/R: Violence, some Language, strong violence against animals and intense themes of death.

ccmiller1492 Yes, this is the truest version to the original novel but as entertainment it is far less satisfying than the previous miniseries adaptation by Christopher Isherwood. It is overlong and tediously embroiders and elaborates on family and courtship that have little to do with the story. Admittedly it is well acted, but Goss is less repulsive than Alice Cooper, Kiss and others of that ilk and so doesn't seem to justify the horror he inspires on sight. Would an entire village beat and chase a creepy looking lamed man just for filching a loaf of bread because he's hungry? Does outsize height, pallor, orange peel skin and Gothic make-up terrorize to that degree? And why are dead corpses constantly lying around in a cemetery unburied,uncovered and apparently ripe for the picking?Some judicious cutting would improve this product immensely. Henry and Elizabeth, for example could be almost deleted for a major improvement alone. Much of Hurt's pedantic professor turns likewise. At least it's good to know that jumper cables were invented in the mid 1800's, even though there were no autos to use them on. Perhaps that's why they began to be used by doctors when hearts stopped?

FromBookstoFilm Spoiler almost a scene for scene remake of Coppola's 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein except Elizabeth being reanimated as the Bride of the Monster like in Coppola's 1994 version. A decade improved the material. Hallmark did a great job with this story. It was way better than the 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein which by the way was close to the original novel but the miscasting of Robert DeNiro as the monster ruined that production. This is the definitive version in my book followed by the 1977 film Viktor Frankenstein known as Terror of Frankenstein in the United States as second choice.Third and fourth the Turner Network Television version with Randy Quaid and the Francis Ford Coppola 1994 version with the miscast Robert DeNiro.The 1984 version with David Warner and the 1973 film with Bo Svenson. Hammer films and Universal films put out good productions but could hardly be considered faithful adaptations of the Frankenstein novel and the 1973 Frankenstein:The True Story with Michael Sarrazin was not the true story but true in spirit in the novel and the story retained most of the novels characters. The Hallmark version is long but worth it definitely get the video because on commercial TV it well to put it crudely SUCKS!

vassal_handmaiden If you have actually read Frankenstein and despaired of ever seeing a good portrayal of the Creature on screen, then you MUST see this version of Mary Shelley's work. Finally, Hallmark has produced a relatively faithful version (changes, such as increased time for the love-story between Victor and Elizabeth, are reasonable and do not alter the original tenor of the work) with an excellent cast. Luke Goss' Creature is eloquent and highly sympathetic, with a beautiful, plaintive voice that is utterly convincing--as is proper. To demonstrate: my father has never read the story and is a big fan of Branagh's wretched film (don't get me wrong, I like Ken, just not that film), but he watched this version with me and exclaimed about halfway through: ''Wow, I never thought of the Monster's problem like that. Frankenstein is really horrible! Why doesn't he just do what the Creature asks? I mean, his life sucks and he just wants some happiness. Frankenstein is such a jerk!'' If the original message of the story can reach my father, then anyone who loves the original will enjoy this film all the more. William Hurt is very enjoyable as always, and Alec Newman does a fine job making himself less and less appealing (and yet more and more interesting) as the story progresses. (It's interesting how his unusual facial features appear as distorted as the Creature's on certain occasions.) All-in-all, a comprehensive and beautiful adaptation, almost sure to please anyone with a love of the book.