User reviews

Last night I saw the second screening of Frankenstein. The movie theatre showed the play twice, two weeks apart, the first time with Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature, the second time with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature.

Since it was my second time watching the play I was really interested to see how the different actors would interpret the monster. JLM initially interpreted the monster initially hesitant and drooling, basing his on monster his two year old son. BC based his monster on stroke victims, so less drolling but also less overall control of his limbs. Amazing how the same yet different.

I'd have to say, after watching both castings, I am slightly biased towards Jonny Lee Miller as the better monster and Benedict Cumberbatch the better Doctor. The play started with the creature "being born" and then learning to walk. When BC played the monster, that was the only part of the play I didn't like. BC took nearly 20 minutes of flopping around the stage, which was very "arty" but a bit too long. For JLM his beginning was much shorter, which I appreciated, as it brought the rest of the fantastic dialogue in sooner. (Or maybe I was just more prepared for the opening this time around).

For myself it was the scene with just the monster and the doctor talking in the mountain cave that was phenomenal with this casting! When the monster asks the doctor to make him a bride, Jonny Lee Miller brought such a "theatrical" flare to the creature, it reminded me of both Shakespeare and Phantom of the Opera. BC as the neurotic doctor was spot on as you could almost follow his decent into madness.

I hope they end up putting this filming out on DVD just so I can rewatch this over and over (They probably won't, but I can dream!) So well done!

My only wish with seeing this on the big screen is " I wish I had seen it live"..

My daughter took me to see it at the Luna cinema in Leederville on Sunday and the viewing was Jonny lee miller as Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch as Victor.

I was moved, by Jonny's performance as he takes you past the monster and you see a man in search of love and acceptance. I was at loss for words, you cannot fault the mans performance..Had I got to know Frankenstein, I would have taken him in and befriended him? maybe.

Benedict Cumberbatch was very good as Victor also, a mad genius, a tortured soul with no one recognizing his brilliance and what he could do, or believed he was as good as God. He found the secret to life itself. He made man.

You feel sorry for him, yet angry as well, He disregards friends and family in his desperate pursuit of his monster, and will do anything and all to destroy it, not taking into account that his monster has become educated and only wants to be accepted in main society.. something we all crave, inside us there is a bit of victor/Frankenstein. If there is one thing to do this weekend check out your local cinema and see if they are screening this gem, it will blow you away.

First of all the experience of "almost" being there was really unique... the sound in the cinema was up nice and loud so you really FELT the sound like you would in the theatre.... and what a brilliant way for thousands of people to enjoy the performances of the National Theatre....

Okay so now on to the play itself... WOW!!! The set design and staging were wonderful, innovative, with minimalist hints of all the locales... Danny Boyle's direction was inspired and energetic...but the ACTING, well really something to behold...

The premise here is an actor's dream.. the actors switch nightly in playing the roles of Victor and the Creature. This is truly inspired, especially since the characters are each a side of the other. Before the performance there was a short behind-the-scenes film, and Jonny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch talked about how they approached the roles... but seeing is believing.. The performance I saw was with Cumberbatch at the Creature and Miller as Victor Frankenstein.. both were very good, but the show belongs to the Creature... and Cumberbatch was INCREDIBLE! the sheer physical demands of the performance had me tired just watching!! The play really focuses on the Creature's growth from stumbling, grunting "thing" to a fully-formed thinking being. "Frankenstein" is one of my favorite novels and I think I have seen just about every film adaptation, and at least one other stage version. Highly recommended!!!

I just saw National Theatre Live premiere on YouTube. Johnny Lee Millar as Victor Frankenstein and Benedict Cumberbatch as The Creature and they were outstanding. The whole cast were flawless and the performances were spellbinding. There was humour and sadness from all the cast. Bravo. 10/10

Remember studying Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' in school in falling in love with it, its prose, the unforgettable characters, the atmosphere and individual scenes like the scene with Felix. Of the film incarnations and Frankenstein/creature pairings, my favourites will always be Colin Clive/Boris Karloff ('Bride of Frankenstein' being even better than their 1931 original film) and Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee.

It was very interesting to me hearing that 'Frankenstein' had been adapted to stage, part of me was conflicted as to whether that particular book would translate well to stage. The casting of Jonny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch as Frankenstein and the creature was interesting to say the least. But being someone who loves going to the National Theatre Live productions and find the series fascinating, decided to cast any reservations aside. And am very glad about making that decision, as it turned out to be surprisingly excellent.

Did think though that the supporting cast were not on the same level as the leads. The exceptions being Naomie Harris' sincere Elizabeth and the touching Felix of Daniel Millar. Do agree that William was pretty feeble.

On the other hand, there is a lot right with this 'Frankenstein'. There is a lot of atmosphere in the sets and lighting, dark and gothic without being too austere. Given full impact by the skillful photography that is cinematic worthy even. The dark and poignant drama of the story are brought out in an energetic and intelligent manner, the mountain cave scene being particularly great.

With this production of 'Frankenstein', did find myself biting my nails and also found myself welling up. It never feels like there's too many people on stage or that there's too little going on. The dialogue flows beautifully and the story has brains and soul. What makes this 'Frankenstein' especially worth seeing. Jonny Lee Miller brings authority and mystery to Frankenstein but it's Benedict Cumberbatch's creepy yet poignant creature who steals the show here. They reverse roles too, and that is interesting as well. Cumberbatch as Frankenstein is authoritative and Miller's creature is somewhat softer while far from being bland, he's still unsettling enough.

All in all, great. 9/10

I have always been a big fan of Frankenstein. Jonny Lee Miller was fantastic. I was sick and in constant pain, I had problems in my personal life, but he gave me a month of catharsis. It was a joy despite the pain. He was a wonderful creature. I have felt loneliness, anger, despair, ostracism, hope. Since I've seen the show with him, I haven't watched any other adaptations. It feels absolutely perfect. I thank for him.

(Unfortunately my English is not good. I use Deepl translator.)

A VERY INTERESTING LOOK FROM DANNY BOYLE'S EYES OF THE TORTURED, MISUNDERSTOOD, " MONSTER". BRAVO!

An intense, must-see thrilling performance from both Cumberbatch and Miller. The dialogues filled with static chemistry, a beautiful and perfect mix between beauty and horror, a destabilized yet animated stage that shows all facets of life and death. A hypnotizing and cutting-edge play, a real work of art that is absolutely not to be missed.

In the face of progress, there is always fear of the unknown. In that fear, we show our inherent instincts, putting into question the words that the blind man quotes. The creature is born pure, learning from humans everything but retaining, in the end, only hatred. The creature seems to prove that progress contradicts our nature in some capacity. A look at modernity from the eyes of an innocent creature, supposedly not a human. Yet, we contradictory recognise more humanity in him then in the people that don't see him as such.

Victor is one of them. He was able to create a creature who learns the value of being human sooner then him. Frankenstein seeks in the dead what he can't recognise in the living. For he doesn't know how to relate to others, and can't seem to find the value on his wife to be. "She is the perfect wife...", says Victor, not in face of the woman already at his side, but of the "perfect" woman he later creates. Silent, with no purpose but to serve his own.

He asks the creature how if feels to be in love "That's how it feels...?". And so, Victor achieves what, for him, was the unachievable. He finds love, but not by or for himself. And because he doesn't know love, he can't allow his creation to have it. Progress seemed the only answer, and in the end, it is the only thing Frankenstein has. But at what cost?

First, the fidelity of this film/play to Shelley's novel, Frankenstein. Have those who gave high ratings read the novel and understood it? Everything here is wrong. Two crucial characters -- Robert Walton and Henry Clerval -- are completely omitted. The Creature (aka Being, monster, et al.) in the novel is not only of superhuman size and strength, but also of superhuman intelligence, which makes him both more sympathetic and scarier. In the novel the Creature is swift, lithe, and agile -- whereas Cumberbatch is always flopping and flailing around with his mouth open. The Creature in Frankenstein is superbly eloquent, but Cumberbatch can hardly speak a coherent sentence. This gets tedious. Although much was omitted from the play/film, a lot of stuff was added, most of which was irrelevant. Frankenstein is a novel of ideas: a moral allegory, written in poetically powerful prose by one of the greatest poets in English -- about the evil effects of intolerance, to the victims of intolerance and to society at large. This hardly comes across when the Creature is not allowed to make his own case comprehensibly, and he and Victor Frankenstein always shout, rather than speak to each other.

Second, how good is this film/play in its own rights? The initial twenty minutes, of Cumberbatch rolling and flopping around on the floor, quickly become boring. The climatic episode of the novel -- the confrontation between the Creature and the blind old man, De Lacy -- is treated at length in the film, but wrongly and ineptly. The point of the episode and the tension are lost because the Creature is unable to make his own case. Victor Frankenstein's father and his bride Elizabeth are portrayed by actors "of color". This may be politically trendy, but what is the point? Of the many irrelevant episodes added to this play/film. a few were striking visually, but all were pointless. All in all, this work is botched and boring. A disclaimer: I'm the author of The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein (2007).

It was a few years since this show got lots of headlines, not least because of the big names involved on-stage and off; not being much of a cinema goer (the crowds), I didn't see this then but a repeat set of screenings at a local independent cinema recently got me there. I wasn't sure what I expected, but the production itself wasn't totally it. The film opened with a rather self-indulgent interview with those involved, before we launch into a very physical with the monster (Miller in the production I saw) discovering life for the first time. It is a sequence that perhaps goes on too long, but speaks of the bravery and dedication of the actor to the performance – a factor which is very much the heart of the whole piece.

From here we get an aspect which is one of the weaker things – the unnecessary showiness of it. A very 'Broadway Musical' train moves onto the stage and it is one of the bigger touches than felt a bit out of place – like Boyle practicing for the Olympics perhaps? There are too many moments like this through the whole 2 hours and, while spectacular, they add less than you would want for how they often occur. Some work very well in support of the story, but too often they seem just for the sake of showing the audience how big everything is. Regarding the music, this works and I enjoyed the size of the music, but for me the production is never better than when it is simply two characters talking – mostly the lead two, but also some scenes with the monster and others. This is mostly due to the cast, because the writing is variable; at times it is engaging and dramatic, but then it has lines of attempted comedy thrown in here and there – mostly not working.

The camera wisely doesn't worry about showing us the audience, or look at the stage across the audience, but rather lets us be part of that experience and keeps us close to the action and not breaking out to a wider view aside from when the action is slightly off the stage and in the audience area. This helps catch the performances, which are strong in the leads. Miller is great as the creature – it is hard for me to imagine him playing the other role. He is brave with the physicality and also compelling with his more developed self. Cumberbatch fits Frankenstein well; again I would struggle to see him in the other role. He has some weaker material to sell, but he plays well opposite Miller. Johnson is good with him too, while Harris is a good name to have involved, but has little in the way of character. Unfortunately outside of these, the supporting turns are surprisingly weaker than expected; particularly whoever the boy was that played William.

All told though, it is the performances of Miller and Cumberbatch (particularly when together) that stay in the mind more than the set flourishes, misjudged humor, or stagey supporting turns; and on this basis the production is well worth seeing – and for me it would be interesting to see it again with the roles reversed.