I watched this for the first time on Encore. Since I don't normally watch Hallmark, I never saw the movie until Encore showed it probably for the umpteenth time this week, and that was only because I was channel surfing. Fortunately I came in during the first fifteen minutes of the first part. I actually enjoyed this version better than any other because it truly follows Mary Shelley's novel. This is the true Frankenstein. Not a horror story, but, as one poster said, a tragedy.For younger viewers and anyone not familiar with the novel, it may be viewed as slow and probably even boring. Those who read the original material, however, will enjoy this film better than any of the past versions. Kenneth Branagh's take was close, but Kevin Connor truly followed Shelley's work.I haven't read the novel since I was a teen but have always remembered how it differed from all the movies except Branagh's. I saw Boris Karloff's original film long before I read the book, and I was completely surprised when I learned how much they differed. The Hammer Films were based more on Universal's film. When Branagh's film hit the screen, I thought it was the closest version to the novel. This one, however, along with its cinematography is truly faithful to the original source material. That is something rare in movies. It probably would never have made its way to the theaters due to its length and lack of real action until the latter stage.I must add viewing this movie 11 years after its release has made me realize what I've missed on the Hallmark Channel. I need to start reviewing what's being shown on that network more often. No telling what other classic adaptations I've missed. Thank you, Encore, for showing it in full without commercials.=0=

Kevin Connor's "Frankenstein" (not to be confused with the other 2004 "Frankenstein" film based on "Dean Koontz's Frankenstein") is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel by Mary Shelley and if that's what you're looking for, you'll be very satisfied. This 3 1/2 hr made for television film leaves out few details (sometimes to a fault) and while it makes a few changes, these are very minor and for big fans of the book, it will be a pleasant experience. The downside is that the movie does not really attempt anything new with the material, even when it comes to the monster's design. For people who are big fans of the story, like myself it did at times make me wish a bit more freedom had been given to the people in charge. The movie aims to make us feel sympathetic to both the creature and the doctor and it succeeds, with good performances from Luke Goss and Alec Newman. The same can't be aid for all of the child actors, but otherwise it's convincing in its performances and as compelling as the original source material. You'll be hard pressed to find a more faithful adaptation so if you needed a refresher of the story or if you are studying the book this is a great watch. (On DVD, July 29, 2012)

There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who have read Frankenstein and those who haven't. I urge everyone to join the ranks of the former. Mary Shelly's novel is one of the greatest tales since Faust, full of philosophy, theology and studies of the human condition. It ain't about a green lummox with electricians boots and bolts through his neck, lumbering through villages as if he's murderously constipated.In this adaptation, we get the original intent of the author. The creature is a protagonist, not a villain. He is intelligent, well spoken, driven by the same thing that drives most of us: a desire to love & be loved. And like any newborn child, he doesn't know the rules of society and morality, although he learns quickly.If you expect to see a horror flick, you'll be very disappointed. There aren't many scares in this movie, and there's a lot of dialogue which may make things seem slow. In fact, a cursory glance at comments tells me that most of the negative opinions were from students who were forced to watch this for a lit class, and they thought it was too long. Sure. But that's how books are, kids. Overall, this was a pretty faithful re-telling.In particular, I was thrilled to see that this film stayed true to the book by relating the whole story through flashbacks told to the Arctic ship captain (excellently played by Donald Sutherland). This creates an "envelope" around the tale which adds suspense and chills, literally. Another highlight was the showdown between the creature and his creator. This was brilliantly done, shot in a superb mountaintop setting in Slovakia, and the acting talents of both Goss & Newman really came through.Other scenes were not as impressive, and at times you might find yourself thinking it's a bit melodramatic. But at least it didn't sink into Kenneth Branagh territory ;) A small criticism I have is that I didn't quite understand the importance of William Hurt's character who was invented solely for this film (not in the book). His presence did add something to the production, but at the same time it introduced a new sub-theme that may have taken away from the original focus. Eh, who cares, Hurt did a good job and I found myself wishing he had more scenes.Oh, one big gripe I have is that they suddenly made the creature kill at random, even mangling poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits. Wassup wit dat? It's like Mary Shelley meets Glenn Close. lol. I guess the filmmakers added that to wake up the audience a bit.Luke Goss (the creature) is the shining star of this production. It's odd, because in the DVD interviews he admits to never having read the book; yet his portrayal was right on ...truly the best depiction of the creature I've ever seen, conveying both ferocity and intellect while eliciting our sympathies. For that, I think this is a great work which, I would hope, might tear down the goofy image of the monster we've lived with for the last 80 years.

Spoiler almost a scene for scene remake of Coppola's 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein except Elizabeth being reanimated as the Bride of the Monster like in Coppola's 1994 version. A decade improved the material. Hallmark did a great job with this story. It was way better than the 1994 Mary Shelley's Frankenstein which by the way was close to the original novel but the miscasting of Robert DeNiro as the monster ruined that production. This is the definitive version in my book followed by the 1977 film Viktor Frankenstein known as Terror of Frankenstein in the United States as second choice.Third and fourth the Turner Network Television version with Randy Quaid and the Francis Ford Coppola 1994 version with the miscast Robert DeNiro.The 1984 version with David Warner and the 1973 film with Bo Svenson. Hammer films and Universal films put out good productions but could hardly be considered faithful adaptations of the Frankenstein novel and the 1973 Frankenstein:The True Story with Michael Sarrazin was not the true story but true in spirit in the novel and the story retained most of the novels characters. The Hallmark version is long but worth it definitely get the video because on commercial TV it well to put it crudely SUCKS!