Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Review: Robert De Niro’s Forgotten Take on the Classic Monster Is Pure ’90s Fever Dream (But Oddly Fascinating)

by

I’ve been waiting so long for Guillermo del Toro’s new film, and it’s finally here! It feels like a perfect moment to revisit Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein from 1994, which I always thought was a really fascinating take on the story. It was such a bold and unusual horror movie for a big studio back then – a beautiful, dramatic film that also genuinely scared you! It really stuck with me.

The film came out at a time when adaptations of classic books were popular, and also during a high point in director Kenneth Branagh’s career. Francis Ford Coppola’s visually striking Bram Stoker’s Dracula had recently shown that gothic stories could still be successful in theaters. Branagh, known for his well-received versions of Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing, seemed like the ideal director to bring another classic, troubled character to life. He was becoming known in Hollywood for his strong theatrical style, his use of Shakespearean stories, and his ability to make those films profitable. With Coppola as a producer and Robert De Niro cast as the Monster, Frankenstein seemed destined to be part of the brief trend of lavish, mature horror films. However, Branagh’s version wasn’t the straightforward, critically acclaimed film the studio probably anticipated. Instead, he delivered a wildly imaginative and intensely earnest film, almost like an opera.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Fumbles Its Adaptation of a Classic

Kenneth Branagh’s film adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein feels rushed, as if the director was striving for flawlessness at an impossible pace. This echoes the novel’s central theme: a relentless pursuit of control that leads to a disregard for the consequences. Just as Victor Frankenstein focuses on how to create life rather than what he’s actually creating, Branagh seems overly focused on mastering the film itself, rather than truly capturing the spirit of the story.

Unlike some adaptations that build suspense gradually, Branagh’s film immediately throws you into a world of icy landscapes and turmoil. The opening scene shows explorers discovering a weakened Victor Frankenstein, who is already obsessed with his own legend and consumed by self-doubt. From that moment on, the film moves at a frantic, uneven pace – the camera is either static or wildly in motion, constantly tilting, spinning, and swooping. This erratic style suggests Branagh lacked confidence while directing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, making it feel like a flawed and unstable creation, much like Victor’s monster.

The famous “It’s alive!” scene perfectly captures the film’s wild, energetic style. What begins as a potentially somber, gothic moment explodes into a chaotic, over-the-top spectacle – complete with billowing steam and oil resembling religious wine. The camera dramatically circles the event, and director Kenneth Branagh shoots it all in slow motion, embracing a sense of grandeur. Victor’s laboratory becomes a stage for intense action and visual effects. The filmmaking itself mirrors Victor’s madness, leaving viewers to question whether they’ve witnessed Victor’s experiment or Branagh’s. Both are driven by a similar arrogance. However, Branagh’s intense focus on the story – whether out of respect or obsession – overshadows the emotional core of the narrative. The film prioritizes the pursuit of immortality over the importance of grief, and every dramatic camera angle and movement prevents those deeper themes from truly resonating. Branagh seems to believe that emotional closeness equals destruction, resulting in a film that never allows enough space for characters to mourn their losses.

DeNiro’s Version of the Monster Can’t Quite Raise Frankenstein From the Dead

When Robert De Niro was cast in the 1994 film, it made headlines – a highly respected dramatic actor taking on a legendary role. Fresh off the success of his first directed film, A Bronx Tale, De Niro was expected to bring weight and intensity to the project. However, the film’s biggest weakness lies in its portrayal of the Monster. Despite the impressive physical transformation and makeup, De Niro’s strong presence and recognizable voice overshadow the creature he’s meant to be. The film aims for epic scale and visual richness, but De Niro’s star power is simply too dominant, preventing the audience from fully believing in the grim creation born from Victor Frankenstein’s lab.

The creature’s makeup, created by Daniel Parker, is remarkably well done, showing a body painstakingly rebuilt from pieces. James Acheson’s costumes – worn, torn rags – hint at the creature’s past of hardship and the discrimination he faced. Robert De Niro delivers a sincere and compelling performance, making it easy for the audience to sympathize with the creature as he learns basic human actions like walking, touching, and speaking. A standout scene shows the creature quietly watching a family and learning to speak, a moment that truly highlights his emerging humanity. For once, director Kenneth Branagh’s camera remains still, allowing the makeup effects and De Niro’s physical performance to combine and create a genuinely heartbreaking image.

Despite the effort to transform him, Robert De Niro remains undeniably recognizable. His distinctive voice and imposing presence, built over years of iconic roles, always peek through. It’s not that De Niro didn’t try; the filmmakers gave him everything he needed to fully embody the character. However, there’s a fundamental disconnect between the actor and the role. Branagh’s over-the-top direction needed a performer who could truly disappear into the part, but instead, we get De Niro with impressive makeup – a problem no amount of skill can fix. This clash is most obvious during the final confrontation between Victor and his creation, which devolves into argument and violence. The differing acting styles become strikingly clear, with De Niro’s subtle approach contrasting sharply with Branagh’s dramatic flair.

Hopeless Helena Bonham Carter is Haplessly Deployed in Frankenstein

Despite strong performances from Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro, the film Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein fails to develop its supporting characters or create a truly immersive world. While Helena Bonham Carter, playing Elizabeth Lavenza, perfectly captures the qualities Branagh favors – a classic, strong, and tragic female character – her performance is overshadowed by the film’s frantic energy. Elizabeth begins as a symbol of hope and innocence for Victor, but her character fluctuates between devoted follower and someone destined for tragedy, diminishing the emotional impact. What could have been a heartbreaking moment – her death and subsequent reanimation – feels like just another dramatic display. When Victor brings her back to life – one of many times he defies death – Bonham Carter delivers a physically compelling performance worthy of its own film. However, Branagh prioritizes spectacle over genuine emotional depth, creating a jarring experience – like an opera performed during an emergency.

Honestly, as much as I love a grand cinematic experience, it really got in the way of the connection between Carter and Branagh’s characters. Every conversation felt like they were performing for the very last row, not for the camera. There were moments – a gentle touch, a shaky voice – where you could feel something real, but those were quickly lost in all the visual extravagance. Branagh, he always goes big, and here he directs and shows his grief a little too much. The more Elizabeth suffered, the more dramatic the shots became. And it all culminated in her being reduced to just a striking image of distress – a sad ending for a character who never felt like a fully realized person, but rather a symbol of someone lost to another’s drive.

For Better and Worse: They Just Don’t Make Mary Shelley Frankensteins Like They Used To

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was ahead of its time, fully embracing its dramatic intensity without reservation. Released near the end of an era, its unwavering commitment to that intensity now feels like a reflection of Shelley’s passionate dedication to the original story. The film, for both good and bad, perfectly captures this: in its filmmaking techniques, its impressive practical effects, and the idea that pure ambition can create something extraordinary. Kenneth Branagh’s performance, once seen as overly dramatic, now appears as the result of immense pressure. He was a director and star completely consumed by his love for the source material, almost unable to let it breathe. The film’s ending, returning to a cold, still landscape after two hours of frantic energy, feels like the only moment of respite it allows. The contrast of fire and white, with Victor and his creation finally at peace, is almost as if Branagh himself is breathing a sigh of relief. The conclusion feels genuinely powerful – a testament to real effort, tangible sets, and a level of ambition that feels rare in modern filmmaking.

Okay, so Guillermo del Toro’s take on Frankenstein is going to be something new, I can feel it. But you know, the core of the story – that whole tragic figure suffering in the cold – that’s still going to be there. And honestly, watching Branagh’s version reminded me of that feeling – it was just… a lot. Over the top, really intense, but strangely captivating. It definitely left an impression.

Read More

2025-11-09 08:09