Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is one of the most revolutionary novels ever penned, practically giving birth to the science-fiction genre as the world knows it today. Since the early days of film, the concept of a scientist bringing the dead back to life has been the subject of many adaptations, all thanks to Shelley's terrifying tale.
But one concept that seems to be subject to different artistic interpretations always seems to be the famous creature. Described in the book as having yellowish skin, glowing eyes, and black hair and lips, how many versions even get close to the original version?
10 Most Accurate: Frankenstein (1931)
It would be unfair to call the original version entirely inaccurate, simply because this was more than likely the first version ever known to such a massive audience. Though Universal's original monster movie isn't as verbose or thought-provoking as his literary counterpart, he does bear similar features.
Honestly, it's Karloff's performance that earns him a spot on the list. He's freakishly tall, has black hair and lips, and Karloff's sunken eyes definitely sell the reanimated corpse motif. No wonder it became so iconic.
9 Least Accurate: Frankenstein (TV Movie)
In 1992, TNT produced its own adaptation of Shelley's novel. While it was definitely a closer adaptation than most versions, its monster was something else altogether. Randy Quaid gives a very interesting performance, but he just doesn't look like what the creature in question should strive for.
With his thick brow, hairy face, and suit of animal pelts, he looks more like a caveman than someone who was once alive and walking about. A decent adaptation, but a less-than-decent monster.
8 Most Accurate: Penny Dreadful
Penny Dreadful's version of Frankenstein's Monster is an overlooked and near-perfect representation of the character, and Rory Kinnear should get an extra serving of applause for his portrayal. This is the type of creature that should star in his own true-to-form adaptation of the novel.
He matches more than a few descriptions from the book but also has a semi-realistic quality to his appearance. His greenish skin, scarred face, and hollow eyes definitely evoke images of the grave, as well as a being who's just reluctant to be alive.
7 Least Accurate: Curse of Frankenstein
The Hammer Horror films are the bloodier reimaginings of classic monster characters, and one of their first was, of course, Frankenstein. While obviously trying not to recreate Universal's movie, Hammer's monster seemed a bit too zombie-like compared to other versions. Normally, this would work in the creature's favor, but he lacks the depth and complexity of the novel.
The appearance is decent and gruesome, but the behavior suffers. Christopher Lee gives a threatening and practiced performance, but becomes more like a mindless goon towards the end.
6 Most Accurate: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Robert De Niro might not be the first choice one considers when playing Frankenstein's Monster, but he does give one heck of a performance in Kenneth Branagh's movie. While his appearance might be a touch more excessive than what the book describes, he undoubtedly fits the part.
The portrayal and performance are considered the most book-accurate versions out there, and that's certainly true to a point. What earns De Niro's version recognition is the attention to the more emotional and complex elements of the character expressed in the text.
5 Least Accurate: Horror of Frankenstein
Once again, Hammer appears with another attempt at recreating the monster. This time, Hammer rebooted their interpretation and tried to start again from scratch. Needless to say, their reanimated version left a lot to be desired from those who read the book.
Despite David Prowse's gigantic presence and fearsome aura, his monster feels more like The Incredible Hulk than something cobbled together from dead bodies. Plus, he looks just a little bit too clean for a living corpse.
4 Most Accurate: Frankenstein (Play)
An honorable mention to be sure, but if there's one version that deserves more recognition considering its accuracy to the book, it's the play by Danny Boyle. Featuring Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller in alternating roles as both Victor Frankenstein and the Creature, it offers quite a unique interpretation.
Though visually different from the novel, the behavior and portrayal are near perfection. The play is the story told almost entirely from the Creature's point of view, showing the development and inner turmoil of a misunderstood monster.
3 Least Accurate: I, Frankenstein
If there's one thing Frankenstein's Monster shouldn't be, it's attractive, at least in the physical sense. I, Frankenstein already has somewhat of a poor reputation, but portraying the creature as simply a scared, muscular, and masculine leading heartthrob was probably its greatest sin.
No offense to Aaron Eckhart or his performance, but this highly romanticized interpretation of the reanimated creature, known as Adam, is a far cry away from the biological horror Shelley envisioned. Definitely give this one a pass.
2 Most Accurate: Frankenstein (Miniseries)
This 2004 miniseries takes more from Shelley's original work than most film adaptations, especially with its monster. This version of the creature is not only a brilliant representation but is nearly identical to the novel's illustrations.
A good interpretation of the monster needs to be sympathetic and unsettling, and this version nails it. The long black hair, the sallow flesh, the sunken, sad, and soulless expression — it's all there. Throw on a few more scars and maybe some decay and he's absolutely perfect.
1 Least Accurate: Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell
Viewers will likely ask why does this creature look like a fusion of King Kong and Bigfoot. Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell might be entertaining, but its monster is far from what any version of Shelley's creature should look like.
He doesn't even look human, so how are audiences supposed to believe there was some living person who walked around like this guy? He's fun to watch, but by no means is he the perfect example of Frankenstein's creature.
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/31jWvdY
0 Comments
Please don't use vulgar comments and avoid discussion on Religious matters