When it comes to literature, Mary Shelley's Gothic novel Frankenstein is one of the more significant titles to appear. Not only is it memorable in the fact that it was written by a woman in a time when women were considered the lesser of the two sexes, but it also set up new standards for science-fiction and horror that were expanded even further with following plays and ultimately the 1931 James Whale film of the same name, which featured Boris Karloff as the mutinous, growling monster created from dead bodies fused with electricity. Most of the criticism of the 1931 film focuses on the fact that it is only very loosely faithful to Mary Shelley's original novel. This 1994 adaptation, directed by and starring Kenneth Branagh, is by far, much more adhering to the text, but that does not make it a better film. I didn't think the 1931 Frankenstein was a great film, but it was still twice the entertainment that Branagh's is.<br /><br />The plot is the same one we're all familiar with. A young man (Kenneth Branagh) mad with the passion to create a living being in his own image recklessly instills life into a humanoid made from the bodies of dead men and creates a hapless, but unnaturally durable creature played uncharacteristically by Robert De Niro and before long, his mistake of playing God soon leads to chaos and people near to him fall victim and before long, he soon takes the responsibility of purging the creature under his own wing. But then there's the element that not all of us are familiar with. That the creature has a mind and a heart of its own and that it wants to meet its creator again, with some requests of its own.<br /><br />I do appreciate director/star Branagh's will to stick with Mary Shelley's original novel, but what I did not appreciate was his failure at supplying us with an appreciable motion picture that ultimately turned out to be nothing more than pointless and forgettable.<br /><br />Like Roger Ebert said in his television review of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Kenneth Branagh has a habit of going over the top with his movies and this is another example. There are many scenes in this movie that are way too explosive, way too loud, and way too graphic to satisfy us such as this rather bloody and fast-moving stillbirth scene early in the picture that did not serve any real purpose in the story than just to give us something to look at.<br /><br />That's what this movie really is. Just something to look at. It's a good-looking movie. The cinematography is crystal-clear and beautiful, the set design and art direction is fabulous, the scenery is entrancing, it feels as if we were looking into an actual world far distant and different from our own. But what Mary Shelley's Frankenstein fails to give us is substance and story and development and in stead focuses on its visual impact, which again, goes way over the hill. In short, it gives us too much and not enough. And as a result, its two-hour running time causes it to overstay its welcome. There are scenes that go on for too long and were not necessary and there are scenes that go by too quickly, but were necessary. And with a movie like this, once the audience starts to lose interest, the look of the film doesn't amount to a hill of beans anymore.<br /><br />Are there any positive aspects to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Yes, there are. And some of them are quite powerful. Number one, Robert De Niro was fantastic as Frankenstein's creature. De Niro does not rely on his grotesque-looking makeup to give the impression of a troubled creature, but instead embraces and surpasses it with his performance and there were some scenes where I actually felt a little moved because he was so great in the movie. The creature, like in the novel, is not the big lumbering green-skinned monster with electrodes emerging from its neck and mindlessly attacking people in rage. Here we have a sympathetic and tragic living being with feelings and emotions and a mind equal to that of a man's. De Niro gives us the most impressive Frankenstein's creature we have seen yet, even better than the Boris Karloff performance from the original. And that was a classic image. Unfortunately, De Niro is not seen enough and Branagh is seen too much and unfortunately Branagh is playing a very dull Victor Frankenstein.<br /><br />That's another thing I might as well mention. Apart from De Niro, we have no interesting characters. Gene Siskel noted that Helena Bonham Carter's character as well as the others were treated mostly as props in the background and he was correct with his criticisms. I did not connect with any of the characters except for the creature and in a movie like this, that is imperative otherwise you're quickly losing interest.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is a real shame. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a major missed opportunity. It's a well-acted, good-looking movie that I was still thoroughly bored with and unfortunately cannot suspend my disbelief and negative attitude toward the film to give it any recommendation except to those who want to see a faithful movie based on Mary Shelley's Gothic classic.