How appropriate or fair is it to compare a remake of a classic horror movie when the original film itself strayed from the novel? Such is the case when trying to compare the two best known versions of "Frankenstein". On one hand you have the timeless Universal classic that have us the image of a crazed mob with torches and pitchforks, and then on the other hand you have creator and creation chasing each other across the globe bent on destroying the other. These are two very different images but they both work extremely well.
While this film is closer in nature to the novel, there are still several differences between the two pieces. The most glaring difference that the movie adds is the reanimation of Elizabeth and her subsequent suicide. The other details are small enough to be overlooked as many details are lost, ignored, or adjusted whenever a book is transformed into a movie.
The one thing I can't figure out is why so many people hate this movie. Why? Some say its because its too melodramatic but so is the book! Others took offense that Robert De Niro's role as the Creature, with most critics stunned as to why an actor who only does "mobster parts" cast in a period horror movie? (This is a question that I've read many times"). I like the film and enjoyed it immensely. Maybe it's because I was 18 when I first saw it and didn't know any better...or maybe I liked it because it is a good film. Yes, yes it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment