That was an excellent one.

Excellent, a Must See

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

I'm (as most people) familiar with Frankenstein because of the 1931 Horror flick Frankenstein and to my shame I must admit I like it. Shame because this movie also shows that Hollywoods arrogance was already there in 1931 by taking someones story and maim it completely for commercial purposes. Because it's a very simple horror entertainment story i never had the urge to read the book.Then I come across the trailer of this film and I immediately wanted to see the movie, Some people gave this movie very bad remarks. Those are the people that, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the true story of Frankenstein.200 years after the book is written we haven't learned much. People still like to play god, the makers of the atom bomb for instance, and you can only hope that they have suffered in their lives like Victor Frankenstein did. "we never intended to use them". Why make them then??? Did you people really were that stupid that you don't understand that when you have something like an atom-bomb there will be somebody that would use it? (as they did).There are also a lot of people in this world who think (like Frankenstein) they have the right to take lives of other human beings just because they are treated bad in their past. There are also a lot of people in this world (the lefties) who think you should understand a creature like Frankenstein, but don't understand that "people" like Frankenstein will kill them with a smile on their face when they feel like it. Therefore I'm glad that in the film is stated, "does a person who takes innocent lives deserve understanding?" on the other hand, do people have the right to misjudge people just because they are different?These are very good questions and therefore i think this movie should be obligatory on Highschools all over the world and should be discussed afterwards so that also people who don't understand this movie can understand and hopefully are as much impressed with this movie as I was. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.

I watched this for the first time on Encore. Since I don't normally watch Hallmark, I never saw the movie until Encore showed it probably for the umpteenth time this week, and that was only because I was channel surfing. Fortunately I came in during the first fifteen minutes of the first part. I actually enjoyed this version better than any other because it truly follows Mary Shelley's novel. This is the true Frankenstein. Not a horror story, but, as one poster said, a tragedy.For younger viewers and anyone not familiar with the novel, it may be viewed as slow and probably even boring. Those who read the original material, however, will enjoy this film better than any of the past versions. Kenneth Branagh's take was close, but Kevin Connor truly followed Shelley's work.I haven't read the novel since I was a teen but have always remembered how it differed from all the movies except Branagh's. I saw Boris Karloff's original film long before I read the book, and I was completely surprised when I learned how much they differed. The Hammer Films were based more on Universal's film. When Branagh's film hit the screen, I thought it was the closest version to the novel. This one, however, along with its cinematography is truly faithful to the original source material. That is something rare in movies. It probably would never have made its way to the theaters due to its length and lack of real action until the latter stage.I must add viewing this movie 11 years after its release has made me realize what I've missed on the Hallmark Channel. I need to start reviewing what's being shown on that network more often. No telling what other classic adaptations I've missed. Thank you, Encore, for showing it in full without commercials.=0=

If you were disappointed with how loosely the 1931 Frankenstein followed Shelly's famous novel, you will be pleased with the 2004 TV miniseries version. It follows the plot of the book almost exactly, and I believe the most pleasing and refreshing detail is that the monster becomes extremely literate in much the same way as in the book, by spying on a foreign girl's education, then by finding and reading various novels, one of which being Paradise Lost.The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive… It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.

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.