--- title: "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/mary-shelleys-frankenstein/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/mary-shelleys-frankenstein" critics_score: 44 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994): what the critics said Critics' score 44 from 10 reviews: 1 positive, 3 mixed, 6 negative. Most critics find Branagh’s adaptation overblown: loud, pompous and less affecting than the novel it is named after. Six of the ten reviews are negative, and one is positive. Where there is praise, it goes to the scale of the production, the extravagant design and the creation sequence, and to Robert De Niro’s Creature, which several reviews single out as the most convincing and sympathetic thing on screen. The reservations are consistent. The dialogue is called inane, the tone florid and camp, and the film is said to lose the story’s heart while failing to be frightening or funny; more than one critic reaches for the 1931 film and Boris Karloff by way of unflattering comparison. The spread is wide, from warm to dismissive. Variety and The New Yorker break from the others on De Niro, finding the Creature’s bid for sympathy overplayed and short of terror, while Slant, the lone admirer, calls his woodland-shack sequence the film’s emotional centre. ## Slant Magazine — Rocco T. Thompson Rating 4/5. 7 April 2022. Thompson calls the film a beautiful monstrosity, handsomely mounted but largely unimaginative. He praises Robert De Niro’s soulful Creature performance and the woodland-shack sequence as the film’s emotional center. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/mary-shelleys-frankenstein-4k-review-kenneth-branagh/) ## The New York Times — Janet Maslin Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 4 November 1994. The page is identified as a film review, but its text is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be confirmed. The headline mentions a brain on ice and a dead toad, but the review’s praise or complaints cannot be established. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/04/movies/film-review-frankenstein-a-brain-on-ice-a-dead-toad-and-voila.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 63/100 (inferred from the text). The review questions whether Branagh’s adaptation achieves the authenticity and depth it appears to seek. The accessible text cuts off before revealing its specific verdict or any point singled out for praise or complaint. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/mary-shelleys-frankenstein) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 4 November 1994. Ebert finds the film overblown and less affecting than its source material. He singles out the ambitious production and performances, though they do not overcome its excesses. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mary-shelleys-frankenstein-1994) ## Radio Times — Tom Hutchinson Rating 2/5. Hutchinson finds Branagh’s adaptation pompous and says it loses the story’s heart and soul. He singles out the creature’s creation as spectacular, while faulting the rest for being less frightening or funny than the 1931 classic. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-bqjovk/mary-shelleys-frankenstein/) ## Empire — Angie Errigo Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 20 January 2006. Errigo finds the film entertaining but ultimately unconvincing and less engaging than it could have been. She praises its extravagant production design and set-pieces, while faulting the inane dialogue. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/mary-shelley-frankenstein-review/) ## The AV Club — Nathan Rabin Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 30 October 2007. Rabin calls the film a noble failure, arguing that it is muddled and neither frightening nor intellectually compelling. He praises De Niro’s creature as a fascinating figure, while criticizing the film’s florid camp and pretensions. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/my-year-of-flops-case-file-80-mary-shelleys-frankenste-1798212917) ## Variety — Brian Lowry Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 31 October 1994. Lowry finds the film a major creative disappointment, an overwrought adaptation that loses its balance among pathos, romance and horror. He praises Helena Bonham Carter’s performance as radiant and engaging, while criticizing Robert De Niro’s creature for failing to inspire terror or empathy. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1994/film/reviews/mary-shelley-s-frankenstein-1200438753/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 4 November 1994. Turan judges the film a loud, tacky disappointment that loses the original story’s gravity and humor. He singles out De Niro’s creature as the film’s most convincing and sympathetic element. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-04-ca-58442-story.html) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 6 November 1994. Lane finds the film hysterical, tedious, and unable to create genuine fright. He singles out the creature’s overplayed appeal for sympathy, contrasting it unfavorably with Boris Karloff’s unsettling ambiguity. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/11/14/obituary-5) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/mary-shelleys-frankenstein.md