Frankenstein ITV1 9pm

[Wayne]

ITV1's 'modern reworking' of the classic horror tale: 'Frankenstein' is on tonight.

"Becoming Jane actress Helen McCrory will star in the two-hour ITV1 one-off drama as 21st-century biologist Victoria Frankenstein, whose research in stem cell research and medical biotechnology ultimately spawns a monster.

In Shelley's original, the male Dr Frankenstein deliberately created the beast, but in ITV's modern version the central character is hoping her work will help save her dying son.

McCrory's co-stars are Vanity Fair actor James Purefoy and the recent star of Channel 4's Longford, Lindsay Duncan."

As this was starting to be discussed on the 'Dracula Movies' thread, i thought i'd give it it's own.

I really don't know whether I fancy this or not though, to tell the truth.

I know what you mean. I've got the distinct feeling that it's gonna be crap. It is ITV1 after all. But i'm curious, & i have to find out for myself.

Anyone else bothering?

[SiHart]

Why do they always schedule these things against a show that will probably appeal to the same audience (ie Heroes on BBC2) and thus split the audience? I might have watchedm but Heroes is so good at the moment I'll be watching that instead.

Si xx

[Alex]

Hmmm. Maybe...I've struggled with most ITV1 drama (bar the odd thing like Morse or Prime Suspect), but then again there's not much else on tonight that's worth watching, so I'll probably give it a go.

How's that for enthusiasm!

[Wayne]

Why do they always schedule these things against a show that will probably appeal to the same audience (ie Heroes on BBC2) and thus split the audience? I might have watchedm but Heroes is so good at the moment I'll be watching that instead.

Something called a VCR came out about 30yrs ago.

[SiHart]

Yes, but the problem with having your TV through the Sky Box is that you can only record the channel you're watching. We don't have a terrestial aerial.

Si xx

[Wayne]

Ah i see! Oh well, it doesn't look much cop anyway.

[Dave Tudor]

I might tape it, then I can fast-forward the breaks, so I'll only have to put up with it for an hour-and-a-quarter if it's no good!

Seriously, I prefer these sorts of things done traditionally, but it might be an interesting take on the story, and Helen McCrory is always excellent, so it might be worth watching.

[Wayne]

I'm aiming to go into it with an open mind, but like you, i prefer the traditional slant with this sort of thing.
I'm giving it a chance though. You never know, it might be alright!

[Dave Tudor]

I wonder if there's ever been a truly faithful, traditional telling of the story on film or on television? There have been several adaptations claiming to be the most faithful, but they've all differed from each other, and so they can't all be right! I must read the novel some time to find out the real tale.

[Wayne]

I've never read the book. I tried once, but it was effing boring!

(Unlike Stoker's Dracula which really captured my imagination)

The 2004 two part tv version seems to be widely regared as the most faithful from what i can gather. But i've watched it, & i'd prefer Karloff or the Hammer films anyday!

[Milky Tears]

Even ITV Teletext weren't impressed when they previewed it yesterday.

At least they still gave it Wednesday's Pick of the Day.

[Alex]

I'm quite liking it so far, but they really should have got a different sponsor - the ad break a second ago ended with our first sighting of the newly born fleshy creature, and then it cut straight to an ad where a big lump of meat was sizzling away in a frying pan. It made me smile anyway.

Edit: Well, I enjoyed that a fair bit, it wasn't anything particularly amazing and if I'd paid to see it at the cinema I'd probably be more disappointed with it, but as ITV drama goes it was pretty good, and surprisingly faithful to the original book in places. I wanted something more from the climax though, which didn't perhaps affect me as much as it should have as I didn't find myself really caring for James Purefoy's character.

[Wayne]

I'm quite liking it so far, but they really should have got a different sponsor - the ad break a second ago ended with our first sighting of the newly born fleshy creature, and then it cut straight to an ad where a big lump of meat was sizzling away in a frying pan. It made me smile anyway.

Quite!

it wasn't anything particularly amazing and if I'd paid to see it at the cinema I'd probably be more disappointed with it, but as ITV drama goes it was pretty good, and surprisingly faithful to the original book in places. I wanted something more from the climax though, which didn't perhaps affect me as much as it should have as I didn't find myself really caring for James Purefoy's character.

I pretty much agree. It was reasonable tv, but very 'throwaway'. I didn't think it was crap, but i'm fairly indifferent about it, to be honest. So much so that i can't really be bothered to say much about it. I wasn't impressed with the creature itself though. It wasn't pretty, but it wasn't very distinctive either.
Watchable, but nothing special. 5/10

[WhiteCrow]

Something called a VCR came out about 30yrs ago.

Oooh - yeah I should have videoed it - so retro!

[WhiteCrow]

I've never read the book. I tried once, but it was effing boring!

(Unlike Stoker's Dracula which really captured my imagination)

I could not disagree more with you. To me Frankenstein is a work of true genius. Something which I found to be one of the most compelling works of fiction of all time. And indeed the themes are really engaging - a scientist creating something to see if it can be done, but not taking responsibility for his creation.

Dracula I found truely dull.

[Wayne]

Different strokes n' all that.

('Watchoo talkin' bout Willis?')

[WhiteCrow]

Possibly as a scientist myself the story of Frankenstein has always had more of an appeal to me, because it's about taking ownership of your work and it's effects.

Certainly as I've got older and my work's taken a life of it's own, going off killing people, it's become somewhat truer to life.

[Wayne]

Whereas i've always leaned towards the fantasy side. Obviously both works are a fantasy, but as you suggest, 'Frankenstein' has a much stronger scientific leaning.
For me, 'Dracula' captured my imagination so thoroughly. It has atmosphere & a fascination that 'Frankenstein' just never acheived for me. The two novels are often so closely linked, & yet to me they're worlds apart.

[Ralph]

I would rate that ITV production as 4/10 from my perspective. I didn't care at all for the characters, I feel it didn't have much atmosphere and the monster looked like an overgrown version of ET. In short it simply didn't engage me at all.

[MacNimon]

I forgot to record this! But I don't think I've missed much, by the sounds of things...

[Perry Vale]

It was ok, for ITV, but I wish ITV would employ a cameraman who can hold the camera still.

Thought the music was ok, wish Murray Gold could use a similar style in DW.

[Ralph]

I forgot to record this! But I don't think I've missed much, by the sounds of things...

It certainly isn't something you'd be disappointed missing IMO

[Dirk Gently]

Well I started to watch it but by 10pm I thought my time would be better spent watching Heroes on BBC3.

[Nathan]

The novel of Dracula is brilliant, but Frankenstein is tedious in the extreme. I've banged on before about how we are lucky that none has ever done a proper adaptation, because it would be mindbogglingly dull. I mean, what about that bit in the rowing boat in Ireland - it just goes nowhere.

[WhiteCrow]

What struck me when I first read it properly was the creature, just how articulate he is.

I have to say I identified a lot with the creature, perhaps more than I have any literary character. The feeling of being abnormal and not fitting in. Of wanting a place in the world, and feeling there isn't. Of wanting to live life with someone and not in solitary.

Against this Victor comes accross as a very vain and selfcentred man.