http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78923
Well, this is interesting. Hopefully it is better than that Wolfman remake we got a while back.
Frankenstein remake being made
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78923
Well, this is interesting. Hopefully it is better than that Wolfman remake we got a while back.
I'm a huge fan of the 1931 film. I've never liked any other adaptation I've seen other than one, though. They'll have to do a good job to impress me.
You owe it to yourself to see Branagh's. It's a wee bit over the top, but it earns it.
I'd like to see a true adaptation of the original 1818 novel, rather than an adaptation of a prior filmed version. Not the Proud Doctor defending his creation as the movies portray it, but, the guilty doctor in the original text, haunted by his decisions and his creation for years, and how little it would have required of the Doctor for everything to come out so much differently.
Show me the "Monster" growing and learning languages and the ways of the world, becoming "wilderness-wise", and making decisions
Scott Brick's Audio Book of the Original Text is so excellent.
I am certainly interested.
One has existed for seventeen years?
I'll try Mary Shelly's again, I saw it before listening to the audio book, but, I don't remember ever seeing that portrayed on film?
I haven't seen it, but I've heard that the recent version of it with Kenneth Brannagh is actually more accurate and following the book more closely than the original movie.
pretty much. there are a few changes, and one big change near the end, but all in all its a good adaption and a good movie.
agreed. one of my all time favorite movie scores.
Bride Of Frankenstein was the best.
Of course.
This is the most faithful adaptation I've seen. It's pretty dry, though; enough to make an argument for taking liberties with the novel.
It's certainly worth a look, just go in knowing it's not the most thrilling piece of cinema.
Yeah, it's weird. It's slightly camp in some places, but usually in a good way--which is a staple of Branagh's work, really, and is to the advantage of the movie.
It's interesting to compare and contrast it to Coppola's Dracula, which was trying to do very much the same thing, and was also made by an auteur director, yet wound up a far lesser film. The camp aspects of that film came across as purely comical, instead of capable of being taken seriously at the same time they were there for fun.
Bizarrely, Dracula actually did better, financially, grossing over five times cost while Frankenstein only did about twice.
Sounds a lot like the television mini-series "Frankenstein: The True Story" (1973), which featured Michael Sarrazin as "The Creature", who was handsome, educated as a gentleman, and accepted by high society, prior to suffering unforeseen side-effects that reveal the truth of his resurrected nature. Awesome cast with James Mason, David McCallum, and a very young, hot Jane Seymour.
