This Is Why You Can't Have Nice Things

Movie night continues in the form of Mary Shellys Frankenstein.

This certainly seemed like the ideal companion piece for Bram Stokers Dracula. I suppose I've always regarded it as something of a follow up, owing primarily to the naming convention of the 2 pieces as well as they were 2 concurrent reworking of classic horror staples. Suprisingly I would appear to fairly accurate, this being produced by Francis Ford Coppola and coming a scant 2 years after Dracula. I get the impression that it was at least in part an attempt to repeat the success of that movie. Theres certainly a pressing tendancy towards comparison. I suppose the real test would be in each pieces faithfulness to the original novels, that presumably being the point of including the authors name in the title. Sadly this is an aspect I'm unable to comment on, as I've still yet to read either.

Don't act so shocked, any sophisticated literary origins in these tales has long been eclipsed by the sheer inexorable weight of popular perception. Ask anybody about Frankenstein and they're more likely to think Karloff than anything else, even if they've never seen the Karloff version. It's really very interesting.

Luckily I am able to comment on nearly everything else. I may be ill informed, unqualified, incoherent and overly subjective, but then this is an internets blog. What were you expecting?

I suppose the main question I need to ask here is, simply, why doesn't this film quiet work? It's not that this is a bad film. You look at any one particular aspect and you couldn't really point out any major faults. The story, obviously is regarded as fairly classic. The acting? This film has Ian Holm covered in blood. AND Richard Briars. I mean yeah, the various main cast are okay as well. Robert DeNiro before he completely lost it (if only just), Helena Bonham Carter doing her usual gothbait bit (I think it's something to do with her crazy hair) and Kenneth Brannagh's muscular chest. I'm not honestly convinced 18th century scientists really had personal trainers, but we'll put that one down to artistic licence. The design work is pretty much gorgeous all round, with some fantastic sets and nice costumes. There's even some good stunt work with a rather impressive full body burn.
The direction is I suppose a little variable but not abysmal by any means. The picture is also suprisingly grim, and I don't just mean in the way of the gore effects, or even the subject matter of cutting up dead people and stitching them back together. I mean the giant bag of amniotic fluid and lack of refrigeration. Let's make sure I'm crystal clear here. He had a swimming pool sized bag of festering vaginal leavings that was slowly accumulated one bucket at a time. Do you have any idea what that must have smelled like? And then 2 men wrestle naked in the aftermath. Seriously, that turns my stomach just thinking about it.
The make up effects are also pretty good, eschewing the sereotypical image form something a little more realistic. The bride version is even more disturbing.

But somehow the parts never come together to be a great whole. I'm hard pressed to point out exactly what, but there is definatly something lacking, a sense of "well, that was alright, but it should have been better".

Perhaps it's something of that nature of the story itself. The conflict is, at least to the outside viewer, so avoidable. If only everyone would just stop being dicks. You just can't help but feel if just someone would take a minute to be nice to the monster then everyone could have been happy. Dickishness breeds dickishness, fear breed fear, hatred begats hatred and pretty soon we'll end up talking like Yoda. Perhaps it's because Frankensteins change of heart after the experiment seems a little... random. Sure, I can buy that he thinks the creatures dead at first, but quite why at that point he suddenly decides the whole thing was a bad idea is less clear. As is his decision to clean up in the morning. Not really the way I'd have played things, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I don't know that there's really much else to be said overall. Yeah, it's not bad, but it's not really great. The DVD is pretty bare bones. I think there's a trailer on there but that's about it. This is a shame I think, as even a bad film can be reevaluated in the light of the actual details of it's production. It would have been interesting to get some insight into the decisions behind how the film was made, and this itself may help to illuminate what it is exactly thats lacking here.

On a score of 1 to 10 I give it a C-.