Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

You could stop this picture on any frame and have a beautiful photograph suitable for framing. That is the only good thing I can say about it. The acting is generally horrible (although I did like Mr. Gomez) and the former reviewer's description of the hilarity of Hugh Grant howling in a boat is spot on. I blame the writing and directing. Most of these actors are capable of much better when given decent direction and decent dialogue to speak. The female characters are not shown to have any talent of their own, as we know at least Mrs. Shelley surely did. On the other hand, the men don't display much talent, either! This whole film is a bit like a soap opera on TV, but the acting doesn't rise to that quality. Turn the sound off and enjoy its visual beauty.

Badly acted, with a sense of a lack of direction, the only saving grace for this film are the wonderful settings and the score.One would not recommend this movie to anyone other than fans of 'early Grant and Hurley', but one wonders how many of them there are!The script is the biggest hurdle. While it contains wonderful references and allusions to the most interesting lines spoken by the historical personages, and does indeed contain some of the words of the poets, the script fills padded out with unnecessary archaisms at best and drivel at worst.What is most strikingly dull about the work is the character of the monster. Whilst the monotony of the voice is supposed to give us certain Gothic impressions, we are left in fact with only a sense of horror at the poor delivery and rather senseless decision to characterize death and foreboding in this way.

Although the story of how Mary Shelley came to write her famous horror story FRANKENSTEIN is a familiar one that has been touched on in quite a few movies, there is always room for a different viewpoint and probably there is the germ of a good idea here but something went horribly wrong. It could be a case of too many cooks which often happens in these international co-productions. It has obviously been heavily cut but I don't think the edited scenes would have helped any, we would have just been bored for longer that's all. The acting is generally poor and the actors are miscast especially Hugh Grant as Lord Byron who has none of the brooding qualities one associates with the poet and who also looks downright ridiculous in some of the costumes even they may be historically accurate. There are one or two rather pretty scenic shots but that's about it.The whole thing ends up as so boring I would suggest it as a cure for insomnia but the music is so inapt and irritating is would probably have the opposite effect.One to avoid.

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."