I can't decide whether this is one of the best films I've ever seen or one of the worst, but it is definitely one of the strangest. I was expecting a benign period piece, with the challenge to write a horror story issued over a glass of port in front of the fireplace. What I found was an exploration of the egos, neuroses, and idiosyncrasies of some very creative, intelligent, and troubled people. The appearance of the monster in the middle of the film bothered me, but I've since realized/decided/guessed that it's SYMBOLIC (emphasis intentional) of the influence that Mary Shelley's book and its reception by the literary world had upon this group of friends. I'm going to have to dig out old textbooks and read up on these writers, as I don't recall knowing before of the wave of suicides and unfortunate deaths which washed over them in a short span of time. The settings and photography of this film are as good as it gets, with beautiful natural light used most of the time. I'd recommend this movie to adult viewers, but not for anyone under 17. This thing would've been disturbing to me when I was in my early teens, and the monster would've scared the crap out of me.

This film has promise that is never fulfilled. Curly-topped Hugh Grant as Lord Byron has to be seen to be believed. He wears the frilliest costumes imaginable. With long hair and chest bared, he looks like he's auditioning for a Lifetime biopic of Siegfried and Roy. One of the best (and unintentionally comical) scenes is Grant howling out on a boat. He is too fey and whimsical to make a credible Byron.Another newcomer is a furry-browed, heavier set Elizabeth Hurley. She is beautiful. Yet, like Grant, she isn't ready for prime time. The scene where her sister, Mary, consoles her following a suicide is funny due to Hurley's exaggerated facial expressions.The music labors on to new melodramatic Gothic depths. Music can enhance an atmosphere when the atmosphere is right. When it isn't, music only makes for another distraction.The monster speaks in staccato. Due to editing, it's difficult to determine if he's a villain or victim. Sometimes it's difficult to determine if he even is.

I disagree with most of the critics, I think it's an excellent film. Camera, music, colors, everything is an harmonic combination. The only possible critic might be, the film can be a little be pretentious, but I would never describe it as tedious. You like it or hate it, I am fortunate ones.

After watching this film, I thought to myself that it was an interesting film, and there were individual scenes which were strong. However, the pacing seemed to be a bit off, and somehow the flow of the film didn't feel right. Then, I noticed that the version I saw was 95 minutes long, while the original version was 126 minutes long. That's thirty whole minutes cut! As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal! Obviously, Miramax re-released this film during early 1999 in order to cash in on Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley. In the process, they cut the film to shreds, and perhaps rearranged the scenes around to make it more "coherent."