Are there any Frankenstein movies that are true to the Mary Shelley, Frankenstein book

The 1994 "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" with Robert De Niro and Kenneth Branagh is probably the closest at feature length. I think there have also been some longer mini-series versions.

James Rolfe did a video pretty recently where he compared many different Frankenstein movies to how close they followed the book. The Hallmark version from 2004 ultimately came out as the most faithful to the source material.

The one with Robert de Niro is pretty close.

there's a hallmark movie that's pretty close (Yes, that hallmark)

So my wife HATES dogs, but loves Frankenstein I asked her and she said ‘the Wishbone episode isn’t a movie, but it is the best version I’ve seen’

Kenneth Branagh's version.

The stage adaptation by the National Theater with Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller is pretty close to the book and an absolutely brilliant piece of theater. You can see it at the NTLive website, but will have to pay something. It’s really worth checking out.

The Scooby Gang meets Frankenstein is pretty close.

Kenneth Branaugh’s version, from 1994, is one of the more faithful adaptations, and probably the most faithful of the major Hollywood versions. Don’t know if this is what you meant by “the Nero” (it is the one with Robert DeNiro).

Robert The-Nero ;)

Oddly enough, chunks of the show “Penny Dreadful” are pretty close, and very well done

Which Frankenstein Film is Most Faithful to the Book? - Cinemassacre [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDW4ZlfTNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDW4ZlfTNw) This might be relevant to you.

There's an old 1977 movie titled either **Terror of Frankenstein** or **Victor Frankenstein**, directed by Calvin Floyd. It's available on TubiTV under the name Victor Frankenstein. Although it's obviously a lower budget movie, it definitely hews pretty close to the novel - the names are correct, William is in it, and the confrontation in the Arctic is shown. I was genuinely surprised by how good it is, and I'd recommend it to anybody.

Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is probably still the closest mainstream feature, but the bigger thing most adaptations miss is the creature’s voice. In the novel he isn’t just a lumbering horror prop, he’s articulate, wounded, persuasive, and capable of making Victor look morally smaller than he thinks he is. So even the ‘closest’ versions usually get the plot beats more than the actual moral temperature of the book.

The 1994 Kenneth Branagh one, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, is the most faithful adaptation by a mile. It even includes the framing device with the ship captain.

Young Frankenstein has some scenes from the book that other movies often leave out (e.g. the Priest scene with Gene Hackman). 🤷‍♂️

There are 469 "Frankenstein" movies (according to Wikipedia). The 2004 Hallmark miniseries is one of the most faithful to the source material, but faithful doesn't always equal entertaining, it has mixed reviews. The Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is pretty faithful from what I remember (that's the one with Robert De Niro and Kenneth Branagh), but I haven't seen it in ages so I don't know how much is just kid opinion.

The first episode of The Hulk from the 70s follows the Frankenstein story beat for beat. I found it on YouTube one night and thought "huh this seems familiar". Not the question you asked but thought I'd add

The one from when he was young is worth checking out.

Mate, even Mary Shelley wasn't sure about what's "true" as the book got a revised version many years later... However, I do agree in the sense that a super popular book has a ton of adaptations that wildly miss on the book's strengths. My reasoning is firstly, the source material having some difficult scenes (a being killing a lot of innocent people without being evil in the typical sense) and secondly, the two James Whale films in the 30s being so popular and great that it kind of became canon. Still, I don't think this is a bad thing as people can still enjoy reading a classic without having everything spoiled and there's hope that film or mini-series will be both faithful and great. PS: I read it recently after reading like a thousand books and it became one of my favourites. I recommended it to a friend who has read like five books in all, and he liked it too. It's brilliant and works on multiple levels.

Cinemassacre (aka the Angry Video Game Nerd) did a video on the topic, comparing a bunch of different versions of Frankenstein. https://youtu.be/fLDW4ZlfTNw?si=N-dhff6JYXqupX7b I won't spoil his conclusion. However, I will warn you that the video has a massive number of spoilers for Frankenstein.

The Angry Video Game Nerd answered this definitively a few months ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDW4ZlfTNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLDW4ZlfTNw) Enjoy!

The 1994 version comest closest

Del Toro's recent adaptation is the most cinematic and follows the same rough beats of the book, more so than the orginal movie although I wouldn't use it as a replacement if you were being tested on the book. There are more faithful adaptations but the with rougher acting.

No movies. The books ending is very bleak and it's like they don't want to totally recreate it.

The Bride is actually the story Mary Shelly wanted to tell 

Having listened to The Curse of Frankenstein last night I can say The Goon Show version is the *least* faithful to the story of all the versions. There is polar ice, a ship, a nod to Scotland and Frankenstein is in the title. That is all. I totally recommend it to all Frankenstein fans. 😸👍

I’ve actually recently been making a study of this. And the answer (at least in the major productions) is no. As other people have said, Kenneth Branagh’s is the closest, but the pre-creation section is completely different. And there are still major changes in the second half. The first half of the book is quite detached and clinical. Lots of detail, but also a lot left unsaid (e.g. there’s almost nothing about Victor’s process). As far as I can tell no adaptation has tried to reproduce this.

The Bride! Yep. Totally. No room to argue or debate at all.

It was just stuff considered to risqué for the time did take anything from the story.

The TV version with Luke Goss maybe. At least that has a smart monster that's also a bad guy.

The one made for Hallmark channel is supposedly the most accurate.

There was a Hallmark version considered to be really close.

Closest in spirit is probably Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, even though it still goes big and melodramatic in very 90s ways. Most adaptations keep the creature but throw out the book’s actual texture, the nested narration, the arctic frame, Victor being more pathetic than mad-scientist-cool. If you want the Shelley feeling more than strict plot fidelity, I’d start there and then maybe pair it with the 1931 film as its own totally separate species.

I remember Frankenstein: The True Story being pretty close.

You should watch Gothic (1986). It's not Frankenstein, but instead about the night that Mary Shelley first came up with Frankenstein. Below is the storyline description from IMDB: The story of the night Mary Shelley gave birth to the horror classic FRANKENSTEIN: Disturbed, drug-induced games are played and ghost stories are told one rainy night at the mad Lord Byron's country estate. Personal horrors are revealed, and the madness of the evening runs from sexual fantasy to the fiercest nightmare. Mary finds herself drawn into the sick world of her lover Shelley and stepsister Claire as Byron leads them all down the dark paths of their souls.

the 1994 branagh one tried hardest but still couldn't commit fully. the creature in the book is so much more articulate and philosophically interesting than any adaptation wants to deal with

Frankenstein: the true story. From 1972, British mini series. Still the gold standard for a faithful retelling of the novel.

Unfortunately they always take liberties with the original

That Robert Dinero Kenneth brannagh one from 30 years go is the closest.

Honestly I love many of these movies, the Universals, the Kenneth Branagh, there is also Frankenstein Unbound-1990 John Hurt and Raul Julia. I liked alot of what they did in Penny Dreadful. But honestly I didn’t care for the book. I want good books to have faithful adaptations but I thought it was not a very good book. Obviously my opinion. The unintelligent mute creature was charming. And an intelligent creature is compelling. But the doctor in the book was a waste of a character. I like the movies better

Obviously van helsing

The new one from Guillermo del Toro really impressed me

Pretty clear Del Toro never bothered to read the book, either that or his reading comprehension skills are terrible.