User Reviews

There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who have read Frankenstein and those who haven't. I urge everyone to join the ranks of the former. Mary Shelly's novel is one of the greatest tales since Faust, full of philosophy, theology and studies of the human condition. It ain't about a green lummox with electricians boots and bolts through his neck, lumbering through villages as if he's murderously constipated.

In this adaptation, we get the original intent of the author. The creature is a protagonist, not a villain. He is intelligent, well spoken, driven by the same thing that drives most of us: a desire to love & be loved. And like any newborn child, he doesn't know the rules of society and morality, although he learns quickly.

If you expect to see a horror flick, you'll be very disappointed. There aren't many scares in this movie, and there's a lot of dialogue which may make things seem slow. In fact, a cursory glance at comments tells me that most of the negative opinions were from students who were forced to watch this for a lit class, and they thought it was too long. Sure. But that's how books are, kids. Overall, this was a pretty faithful re-telling.

In particular, I was thrilled to see that this film stayed true to the book by relating the whole story through flashbacks told to the Arctic ship captain (excellently played by Donald Sutherland). This creates an "envelope" around the tale which adds suspense and chills, literally.

Another highlight was the showdown between the creature and his creator. This was brilliantly done, shot in a superb mountaintop setting in Slovakia, and the acting talents of both Goss & Newman really came through.

Other scenes were not as impressive, and at times you might find yourself thinking it's a bit melodramatic. But at least it didn't sink into Kenneth Branagh territory ;) A small criticism I have is that I didn't quite understand the importance of William Hurt's character who was invented solely for this film (not in the book). His presence did add something to the production, but at the same time it introduced a new sub-theme that may have taken away from the original focus. Eh, who cares, Hurt did a good job and I found myself wishing he had more scenes.

Oh, one big gripe I have is that they suddenly made the creature kill at random, even mangling poor unsuspecting bunny rabbits. Wassup wit dat? It's like Mary Shelley meets Glenn Close. lol. I guess the filmmakers added that to wake up the audience a bit.

Luke Goss (the creature) is the shining star of this production. It's odd, because in the DVD interviews he admits to never having read the book; yet his portrayal was right on ...truly the best depiction of the creature I've ever seen, conveying both ferocity and intellect while eliciting our sympathies. For that, I think this is a great work which, I would hope, might tear down the goofy image of the monster we've lived with for the last 80 years.

Since I was a kid, I am fascinated for the romantic and dramatic tale of Frankenstein, and I have probably seen all the adaptations released in Brazil. This television version was a nice surprise for me: although unnecessary, I liked very much since it is not a simple remake. The locations are wonderful, and the film is very well produced. I liked also the dramatic performance of the unknown Luke Goss in the role of the needy creature; his character clearly expresses the need to be loved and to love. Donald Sutherland is great as usual, and Alec Newman does not disappoint in the role of the scientist Viktor Frankenstein. The DVD released in Brazil has 154 minutes running time, and when I see in IMDb that in USA the DVD has 204 min and in UK, 268 min, I dare to say that the edition in Brazil was perfect, with a fluent continuity. I really do not know which parts were cut, but certainly they were not important. But I noted the minor participation of Julie Delpy in very few scenes. Last but not the least, it is very weird that many favorable reviews are made by users with only one review issued in IMDb. This movie is good and does not need this type of apparently fake promotion. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Frankenstein"

I read the book years ago, and loved it. I also saw the Kenneth Brannagh version and was pleased. So I was wondering what new things this version would bring me. I bought the DVD because of Sutherland and Harris. And when I watched it, I recognized the story, of course. But yet, I was really entertained. it was new, it was above all beautiful. The cinematography was very good, sharp en sinister. A real new movie. This was good stuff. And I will see this once again. 176 minutes is a long way to watch. I planned it over two evenings but went straight to the end and midnight. This means something. I recommend it for an entertaining night.

A Hallmark production, "Frankenstein" (2004) is the most literary faithful filmic version of the oft-done tragedy. Luke Goss looks more like the novel's depiction of the creature (with long black hair and white teeth) than Boris Karloff in the Universal classics or Robert De Niro in the 1994 version, but he's also too handsome in a dark gothic way, resembling Type O Negative's Peter Steele. The creature in the 1994 version didn't have hair and was a more gruesome depiction, which fits Victor's description of the creature in the book as "hideous" (then, again, Victor was extremely biased against his creation).

While this rendition and the 1994 one are the most faithful to Shelley's book, they each omit parts and change certain things. For instance, both omit Victor's traveling to Scotland and, later, Ireland, which was a good call. Actually, I think both versions improve the story in different ways. When Victor and the creature finally meet and have a discussion in the high country, this one has them meet at a ruined castle, which is an excellent deviation. The 1994 version has them talk at a remote glacial dwelling, which is closer to what occurs in the novel.

My favorite part is when the monster finds sanctuary with the rural family, unbeknownst to them. It helps the viewer get to know the creature and have compassion on his plight. In the book and the 1994 version all sympathy is pretty much lost eventually while this rendition paints the creature more sympathetically. The locket sequence is lame though, but that was a weak point of the novel as well.

Alec Newman is intense and brooding as Victor Frankenstein and I could relate to his work obsessions carried out in his nightgown (or whatever). Any problems with the flick are due to translating a convoluted 19th century gothic horror classic to modern cinema.

With almost an hour more to play with compared to the 1994 version, this one has the luxury of taking its time and is the better for it IMHO. The 1994 movie, by contrast, is overly manic and melodramatic because it tried to cram too much into two hours.

The film runs 2 hours, 56 minutes, and was shot in Slovakia and Norway.

GRADE: B+

This version of Frankenstein is by far the best and truest version of the classic book written by Mary Shelley; both in content and intent. A true feeling for the period that this book was written in can be felt in this film. This is not the "Hollywood-let's re-write the story-Kennith Brannagh, DeNero-version" and it is not overacted. It is the story as it was meant to be told; with all the pathos, depth and empathy that it was intended to inspire, as well as horror. I am impressed by Alec Newman,(dune) once again, and Luke Goss gives an outstanding performance. Sutherland and Hurt, as always, shine. Finally, there is a more-than-watchable version of the first true science fiction story ever written.

Having seen all of the "old" versions of Frankenstein, I was somewhat surprised to have yet another version of this film arrive in my mail, a gift from my daughter. "See what you think," she challenged. Although it seemed to take a long time to actually get into the story, once there, I was captivated. Apart from the fantastic scenery, great cast and literary accuracy, one more thing held my interest. As a researcher of human psychology and abnormal psychiatry, this film (hands down) is one to provoke serious contemplation of what makes people do what they do or don't do. I have watched it twice already and have plans on doing so again in the near future; it's that good.

If you want to view a movie that has at its core Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, this is the one for you. Don't try to compare it to other film versions! Better yet, re-read the novel, then view this film. 100% what Shelley intended. From the opening scene to the reminder that the viewer is hearing Victor tell his story to Captain Walton, you are in the novel. The scenery is authentic, the dialog superb. No, it's not a blockbuster, but it is a truer adaptation of the novel. I have long been a fan of science fiction, and it is refreshing to see a movie that does not so depart from the original story as to be almost unrecognizable.

A fair, honest version of a great, beautiful, in profound sense, novel. Well crafted, correct scene by scene, offering the story and not reduced to thrill, reminding the richness of the masterpiece of mary Shelley , I admitt, it is just delightful.

One of motives - Luke Goss, offering a touching, seductive, sweet - bitter portrait of Creature . The second - Alec Newman as a realistic dr. Frankenstein.

And, not the last, Donald Sutherland and William Hurt as the good pillars of the tent of story.

It is a version of rediscoveries of old details .

Delightful, seductive, soft , poetic.

A beautiful gift for the readers of book .

When I first stumbled upon this film while channel-surfing, I thought it was a bad vampire movie. After listening closely to the dialogue, I realized that this was Frankenstein. Not only was it Frankenstein, but it was the most true-to-the-novel Frankenstein I'd ever seen.

Generally made for TV movies aren't a double thumbs up, but this was actually very enjoyable. The acting was well and the scenery was gorgeous. I was very satisfied at how superb a job Hallmark did on Mary Shelly's classic.

If one wishes to see a more Universal-type Frankenstein, look no further than Boris Karloff's version. If, however, one is tired of Frankenstein remakes after Frankenstein remakes, all modeled after the Hollywood tellings and not Shelley's piece, then one will be pleased with Hallmark's version.

I give this an eight out of ten.

Kevin Connor's "Frankenstein" (not to be confused with the other 2004 "Frankenstein" film based on "Dean Koontz's Frankenstein") is a pretty faithful adaptation of the novel by Mary Shelley and if that's what you're looking for, you'll be very satisfied. This 3 1/2 hr made for television film leaves out few details (sometimes to a fault) and while it makes a few changes, these are very minor and for big fans of the book, it will be a pleasant experience. The downside is that the movie does not really attempt anything new with the material, even when it comes to the monster's design. For people who are big fans of the story, like myself it did at times make me wish a bit more freedom had been given to the people in charge. The movie aims to make us feel sympathetic to both the creature and the doctor and it succeeds, with good performances from Luke Goss and Alec Newman. The same can't be aid for all of the child actors, but otherwise it's convincing in its performances and as compelling as the original source material. You'll be hard pressed to find a more faithful adaptation so if you needed a refresher of the story or if you are studying the book this is a great watch. (On DVD, July 29, 2012)

Any time "Frankenstein" is shown, whether in 1931 or to this present day, this story will remain basically the same, however, in this TV presentation, Hallmark gave the story more reality with its great photography of the countryside and the local people who were very colorful and enjoyable to view. Luke Goss,(Creature),"Cold & Dark",'04, gave an outstanding performance as a man made creature who has to learn his lessons about life from a mother teaching her little girl in the backyard. Alec Newman,(Victor Frankenstein),"Bright Young Things",'03, brought a frog back to life and a dog and drove his professor, William Hurt,(Waldman),"Body Heat",'81, absolutely CRAZY trying to tell him he could bring the dead back to life. The professor kept telling him over and over, "God is the only Person to Give LIFE". I enjoyed seeing Donald Sutherland,(Captain Walton),"A Time to Kill",'96 appearing on a sort of Ghost Ship sitting in foggy, ice bound waters. I will always love Boris Karloff as Frankenstein,in 1931, however, this was a great attempt to make Frankenstein more up to date with this CENTURY!

If you have actually read Frankenstein and despaired of ever seeing a good portrayal of the Creature on screen, then you MUST see this version of Mary Shelley's work. Finally, Hallmark has produced a relatively faithful version (changes, such as increased time for the love-story between Victor and Elizabeth, are reasonable and do not alter the original tenor of the work) with an excellent cast. Luke Goss' Creature is eloquent and highly sympathetic, with a beautiful, plaintive voice that is utterly convincing--as is proper. To demonstrate: my father has never read the story and is a big fan of Branagh's wretched film (don't get me wrong, I like Ken, just not that film), but he watched this version with me and exclaimed about halfway through: ''Wow, I never thought of the Monster's problem like that. Frankenstein is really horrible! Why doesn't he just do what the Creature asks? I mean, his life sucks and he just wants some happiness. Frankenstein is such a jerk!'' If the original message of the story can reach my father, then anyone who loves the original will enjoy this film all the more. William Hurt is very enjoyable as always, and Alec Newman does a fine job making himself less and less appealing (and yet more and more interesting) as the story progresses. (It's interesting how his unusual facial features appear as distorted as the Creature's on certain occasions.) All-in-all, a comprehensive and beautiful adaptation, almost sure to please anyone with a love of the book.

I liked this version. Sutherland and Hurt were good in this. In the beginning the acting seemed kind of bad but Alex Newman did a great job in this. For me, he really saved the beginning. I never saw the DeNero version so I can't say anything about it but I did see the Boris version and I did read the book and I have to say that it did impress me.Hurt was good, Goss was good, Sutherland was good,but Newman really made this movie I think. As for people saying that the dialog was annoying, it was annoying in the book too. Slow scenes were the same in the book. All in all, it was a good screening of the book. I liked having an articulate creature, it was how I pictured in while reading it. If the other actors had better acting in it, It would have raised the 'out of 10' rating for me.

For the most part I enjoyed this, mostly, faithful adaptation of the novel. It's a not masterpiece by any means, but it's a hansom production. The acting, for the most part, is good by Alec Newman as the Victor Frankenstein and Luke Goss as the creature. Actually Goss gives a really good performance, acutally his portrayal of the creature is probably the most sympathetic I've seen. William Hurt, Donald Sutherland, and Julie Delpy in supporting roles don't hurt the film by any means. One flaw is that the creature wasn't scary looking. He looked like someone with a skin deformity but not someone I would find scary. I thought the film could be more suspenseful than it is. At least we now have version that is at least 90% faithful to the novel, unlike most, which are usually about 5% faithful, even Kenneth Branagh's version took a lot of liberties.

I watched this for the first time on Encore. Since I don't normally watch Hallmark, I never saw the movie until Encore showed it probably for the umpteenth time this week, and that was only because I was channel surfing. Fortunately I came in during the first fifteen minutes of the first part. I actually enjoyed this version better than any other because it truly follows Mary Shelley's novel. This is the true Frankenstein. Not a horror story, but, as one poster said, a tragedy.

For younger viewers and anyone not familiar with the novel, it may be viewed as slow and probably even boring. Those who read the original material, however, will enjoy this film better than any of the past versions. Kenneth Branagh's take was close, but Kevin Connor truly followed Shelley's work.

I haven't read the novel since I was a teen but have always remembered how it differed from all the movies except Branagh's. I saw Boris Karloff's original film long before I read the book, and I was completely surprised when I learned how much they differed. The Hammer Films were based more on Universal's film. When Branagh's film hit the screen, I thought it was the closest version to the novel. This one, however, along with its cinematography is truly faithful to the original source material. That is something rare in movies. It probably would never have made its way to the theaters due to its length and lack of real action until the latter stage.

I must add viewing this movie 11 years after its release has made me realize what I've missed on the Hallmark Channel. I need to start reviewing what's being shown on that network more often. No telling what other classic adaptations I've missed. Thank you, Encore, for showing it in full without commercials.

=0=

If you were disappointed with how loosely the 1931 Frankenstein followed Shelly's famous novel, you will be pleased with the 2004 TV miniseries version. It follows the plot of the book almost exactly, and I believe the most pleasing and refreshing detail is that the monster becomes extremely literate in much the same way as in the book, by spying on a foreign girl's education, then by finding and reading various novels, one of which being Paradise Lost.

The movie is not and I don't believe was meant to be a horror or even a thriller, but is more like a drama. There are also numerous references to the original 1931 version, such as: the monster appears behind a little girl throwing flowers into water. Instead of killing her, however, he befriends her and she takes him into her home, her family cares for him until her big brother comes in and drives him away. Another similarity would be when the creature stirs and comes to life; Victor exclaims toward the skies, "It's alive… It's aliiiiiiiiiiivveeee!!!!" The actors in this film are perfect for their roles, Luke Goss perfectly portraying a tormented and emotionally crushed abomination of science, Alec Newman portraying the mad doctor responsible for such a creature, Julie Delpy playing the concerned fiancée who only wants to know what's going on in the head of her soon to be husband, and every other actor who fit their roles perfectly. There were a few major plot holes, however, such as the old fashioned gun being able to fire multiple shots in a row without needing to reload once, another would be that the monster chopped massive piles of wood for the family that took him in and no one noticed or heard him doing it once, but this is a plot hole in the book as well. All in all, the 2004 version was very well done, followed the book closer than any other version, and had better production value than any other.

FRANKENSTEIN is a TV miniseries retelling of the Mary Shelley novel, made by Hallmark Entertainment. I do enjoy these Hallmark shows, which are invariably well-cast and good-lucking; certainly the production values in this one are sumptuous indeed, especially considering it was made for TV. The Arctic locations look fantastic, and the European location work really adds to the atmosphere of the piece.

In scope and tone, this is closely aligned to Branagh's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, although it's not as good as that movie. For a start, the cast is less interesting, although there are exceptions. I can't see why Donald Sutherland, for instance, is wasted in the thankless role of the ship's captain, or why Luke Goss makes so little an impact as the Creature. William Hurt and Julie Delpy are similarly underutilised in relatively minor roles, while a hell of a lot is put on the shoulders of Alec Newman, playing Frankenstein. Newman is okay, but hardly great; surely this part cries out for a well-established talent.

This miniseries boasts some decent cinematography, but it's an entirely bloodless affair, and somehow the drama is never as exciting as it should be. It doesn't help that the Creature looks like a tired goth, or maybe Lord Byron after a particularly heavy night on the booze. FRANKENSTEIN is acceptable and deserves kudos for capturing the right "feel" of the novel, but I'd rather watch the Branagh adaptation again than this one.

Thrilling and exciting retelling based on Mary Shelley classic novel . In 1794, in the Arctic Sea, Captain Robert Walton (Donald Sutherland) is a man obsessed to reach the North Pole, pushing his crew to exhaustion. When his ship hits an iceberg, it is stranded in the ice. Out of the blue, Captain Walton and his men overhear a dreadful cry and they see a sick stranger coming to the ship. He introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein (Alec Newman) and he tells the Captain the story of his life since he was a little boy . Victor Frankenstein in love for his half-sister goes University where learns lessons from illustrious professor (William Hurt) . He decides to drop out and to continue his studies alone . Then Frankenstein attempting to create an artificial monster of his own . But he's creating a man made being but inadvertently giving him a criminal instinct . The bloodthirsty monster asks to Victor trying to alive a recently executed for give him a lover but Victor rejects him and the monster flees . When the brilliant but unorthodox scientist Dr. Victor Frankenstein rejects the artificial man that he has created, the Creature (Luke Goss) gets away and swears vengeance. The monster begins a killing spree , terrorizing the countryside and everything gets worse .The prowl goes on , continuing his revenge against Frankenstein and back again , until the end in the freezing Arctic where they meet a captain of a galleon

A TV version that deserves to be appreciated , this is a stylish , brilliant and faithful adaptation of the immortal , durable novel, sticking close to the original story . It's a well designed recounting of Mary Shelley's horror tale . A luxurious and colorful adaptation in the wake of Kenneth Brannagh's Frankenstein (1994) , this film was nominated for ten Oscars or Academy Awards , but it achieved none of them . Well based on Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel, this TV miniseries tells the story of Dr. Victor von Frankenstein, a promising young doctor who becomes obsessed with bringing the dead back to life , then his experiments lead to the creation of a monster, which Frankenstein has put together with the remains of corpses , but it's not long before Frankenstein regrets his actions when he's coerced by the evil monster into creating a mate for him . Spooky images creates impact of numerous key sequences as at the monster creation in which Frankenstein creates a simple creature from various body parts ; then he subsequently turns into a killer monster when Dr. Frankenstein rejects him . This is a good entry of the very adapted yarn , it has several ghoulish scenes , alongside with some touches of romance . Although creaky at times , but it's still breathtaking for its impressive images . Terrific acting by Alec Newman and Luke Goss in his portrayal of the creator and the monster , the latter with a sinister and weird performance . It's an entertaining movie if you catch it in the right frame in the mind . Spectacular and glamorous shots by cameraman Alan Caso make this picture a real treat . Sensitive and evocative musical score Roger Bellon . Here director Kevin Connor gives some very Baroque images and guiding us through the tale of Frankenstein's quest for knowledge and a strong confrontation between the astonishing monster and his creator . This ¨Frankenstein¨ (2004) is one of the multiple versions of the vintage tale , the best ones are the Universal's cycle , starting with ¨James Whale's Frankenstein¨a nd going on sequels such as House of Frankestein¨, ¨son of Frankestein¨, ¨Frankestein meet the wolf man¨ and ¨ The Zingara and the monsters¨

The motion picture was well and competently directed by Kevin Connor .who has a long and prestigious career . Sir Richard Attenborough gave him his break to edit his first directorial film "Oh! What A Lovely War." Connor's directing break came from Amicus Films producer, Milton Subotsky, a horror film - "Tales from Beyond the Grave", that lead to a series of Edgar Rice Burroughs fantasy/adventure films made in similar style , the agreeable movies : ¨The land that time forgot (1975)¨, ¨All the Earth's core (1976)¨, ¨The people that time forgot (1977)¨ and ¨Warlord of Atlantis¨ (1978) . Connor moved to Los Angeles 1980, directed "Motel Hell" and 'Sunset Grill'. He found himself drawn to high-profile international mini-series, "Master of The Game", "North & South Book 2", "Great Expectations", "The Old CuriosityShop", "Iran, 444 Days ", "Frankenstein", "Blackbeard" and most recently "Marco Polo". Connor has directed some 100 + Film and Television projects , continuing engaged in producing and directing feature films. Rating : 6.5/10 .Highly recommended , despite being an unknown rendition.

Initially, I found this adaptation rather slow-paced for my tastes, but having got through it, I reckon it mustbe the best adaptation; not because I've read the book, but because, for the first time, I'm inspired to. I never before thought that The Creature could have been beautiful. Oh, there was the film with Michael Sarandon as the initially gorgeous Creature, but that was an entirely different sort of beauty. Goss' Creature was beautiful, but in an eldritch way. It wasn't a reassuring beauty. It was a beauty that was all wrong, that should never have come into being and had all the hallmarks of its cadaverous inception. At times, Goss' sensitive portrayal of The Creature's anguish was almost too painful to watch. Scenes of The Creature's suffering juxtaposed with those of Victor's oblivion to it made me hate Victor in a way I never had before, to the point that when this suffering actually encroached on Victor's own life, I actually felt gratified. There was an understatement to the whole piece that made it all the more nightmarish. It clearly showed how people need to find a scapegoat and the dangers of playing God when one is not prepared to accept the responsibility of being God. The sad thing about this story is that it didn't have to be this way. Each character made his own choices and did not have to respond to his circumstances in the way that he chose to. It's even sadder that they were blind to this fact till it was too late.

This is a very good and very accurate adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic gothic horror story, Frankenstein. It is in fact, by far the closest adaptation and it pains me (a horror fan and gore hound) to say that. It's not a bad thing to admit but it's still oddly unsatisfying.

First off, this a great film and well worth any horror fanatic's time. The performances are great. The minor characters are especially noteworthy. The production value is good and the story (as in the novel) is literally timeless. Why not 10 stars then?

Simply put, this is a Hallmark (I repeat Hallmark, as in the greeting cards) channel miniseries and it is far more gruesome than anything that I have seen on the channel before or since but leaves me longing for more in that department. While it is extremely well done, it makes me sad to realize that no Hollywood production could match it.

The things that this film lacks is shock value, which was definitely present in the original story. In short, this movie lacks cinematic flair. While this doesn't make my viewing experience negative, it makes me realize what could have been. Had someone stuck to the original source material with a great budget and a greater cinematic eye, we would have a definitive Frankenstein film. The film, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein had the horror and gore (even to excess) but it missed important parts of the novel that this version did not.

If someone in Hollywood would have tried as hard as the people who make greeting cards, we would have the masterpiece that Shelley's novel deserves. Again, I am not trying to say that this isn't a great film. I'm just depressed that someone else didn't try this (a faithful adaptation) first.

The story of Frankenstein is typically well known but in case you are wondering what it's about, it is the story of a man who essentially throws caution and reason to the wind to delve into the science of life after death. Frankenstein's arrogance, neglect and narcissism take center stage and the character has to deal with the collateral damage created by his actions. Again, I highly recommend this to any horror fan but don't expect to be spooked or grossed out because it is brought to you by the same company that gave you Soap Operas like "When Calls the Heart." If any big wig in Hollywood happens to read this, just know that you could have made a masterpiece had you simply followed the actual story and made it an adult themed cinematic affair.

I'm (as most people) familiar with Frankenstein because of the 1931 Horror flick Frankenstein and to my shame I must admit I like it. Shame because this movie also shows that Hollywoods arrogance was already there in 1931 by taking someones story and maim it completely for commercial purposes. Because it's a very simple horror entertainment story i never had the urge to read the book.

Then I come across the trailer of this film and I immediately wanted to see the movie, Some people gave this movie very bad remarks. Those are the people that, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the true story of Frankenstein.

200 years after the book is written we haven't learned much. People still like to play god, the makers of the atom bomb for instance, and you can only hope that they have suffered in their lives like Victor Frankenstein did. "we never intended to use them". Why make them then??? Did you people really were that stupid that you don't understand that when you have something like an atom-bomb there will be somebody that would use it? (as they did).

There are also a lot of people in this world who think (like Frankenstein) they have the right to take lives of other human beings just because they are treated bad in their past. There are also a lot of people in this world (the lefties) who think you should understand a creature like Frankenstein, but don't understand that "people" like Frankenstein will kill them with a smile on their face when they feel like it. Therefore I'm glad that in the film is stated, "does a person who takes innocent lives deserve understanding?" on the other hand, do people have the right to misjudge people just because they are different?

These are very good questions and therefore i think this movie should be obligatory on Highschools all over the world and should be discussed afterwards so that also people who don't understand this movie can understand and hopefully are as much impressed with this movie as I was. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.