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).
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).