Reader Reviews
Frankenstein (Olivier (National Theatre), West End)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Just returned from seeing Frankenstein - what a stunning piece of theatre, using the Olivier to its full potential. The staging makes for a quite exceptional theatrical experience. The opening scenes in particular are quite incredible as the Creature takes its first steps. We saw Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature and he delivered a quite outstanding performance, a very physical, demaning role - its easy to see why they alternate the part. Benedict Cumberbatch was perfect as Frankenstein - they make for an outstanding pairing for what was a special night of theatre going. - Paul Wallis | 21 Apr 11 |
| Danny Boyle may have cut his teeth at the Royal Court but it is as a film director that he is best known and Frankenstein clearly displays his cinematic vision with a series of special effects and innovative lighting. However, once you have stopped marvelling at the design you realise that Nick Dear has come up with a pretty awful adaptation with some laughably anachronistic dialogue. Shelley's tale of science, creation and humanity just about survives, and is best shown during a genuinely moving spell when the monster is adopted and educated by a blind old man. Jonny Lee Miller is impressive as the monster and Benedict Cumberbatch is ideally suited to the role of the coldly heartless Frankenstein. I am sure it is grossly un-PC to mention it but the production also suffers from an absurd piece of casting - you could sense the entire audience reacting with surprise at the realisation that the black actor was the father of Frankenstein and not his (also black) fiancee. This is taking colour-blind casting to ridiculous extremes and is unfair on the actors involved as it distracts from their performances - and Naomie Harris very good as Elizabeth who is fatally sympathetic to the monster. At the end half the audience were on their feet but the other half remained firmly seated so this cinematic stage production seems to have divided viewers - sorry theatregoers. - David Baxter | 19 Apr 11 |
| What a mesmerising piece of theatre and so well directed by Danny Boyle. We saw Benedict as the Creature and Jonny as the Doctor and they were both superb and would love to see it again with the role reversals(how do they remember the lines for both parts!!!!!!!) Great cast with the lovely Naomi Harris and Loved Ella Smith who brought some witty lines specially the Wedding night ones. A true masterpiece and one of the very best plays I have seen in a long time. - Joe Spiteri | 14 Apr 11 |
| I loved this show and thought that JLM was absolutely superb. I went with my daughter who has been teaching the gothic genre for years and although aspects of it had been changed, she was delighted that the "creature" was portrayed in a way much more like the original than the Hollywood-type derivations we are more used to. The opening scenes were spellbinding and the stagecraft superb. - Elaine | 10 Apr 11 |
| I saw both versions via NT live screenings in NY. I felt that the Cumberbatch came out on top of the both roles. The soul and philosophical questions of the play were only carried by him; neither Miller’s Creature nor his Frankenstein succeeded in conveying such. When Cumberbatch was the Creature, his struggle of being a man and yet feeling like an out-casted monster burnt through the screen and made heartbreaking; when he was Frankenstein, he made you believe that this mad scientist, not his creature, was the real monster in the play the minute he started to talk to his Creature. Cumberbatch’s voice expression was so good that I can literally close my eyes, just listen to him and feel the Creature’s or Frankenstein’s emotion. Miller is a very good actor; on the stage he gave it all and had great presence, but he was playing opposite one of the finest actors of his generation; the Cumberbatch is simply in a different league. - myc | 28 Mar 11 |
| Absolutely Fantastic. I was lucky enough to see both combinations. Firstly Cumberbatch as the Creature at the national itself and then JLM as the creature in the cinema as part of NTLive. Although both were great I personally thought that JLM as the creature and Cumberbatch as Frankenstein was the superior combination. A stunning piece of theatre, the best thing I've seen in a while. Well worth a watch if you can get day tickets. - LK | 28 Mar 11 |
| Cumberbatch's creature is the stuff of horror, truly terrifying, born in writhing twitching agony, and suffering every more cruelly as the play proceeds, and consequently becoming calculating and cruel irreversibly and irredeemably. But his brilliant creature doesn't fit with the Paradise Lost motif of the play so well as JLM's equally brilliant creature. JLM's creature is like a gentle newly born animal enjoying every new discovery of his body and the elements, a creature born of joy, of paradise even, then slowly crushed by a shallow judgemental world and pushed tragically to breaking point. It is JLM's creature who seems truly capable of love, and who seems to love even those he is pushed to seek revenge against. Cumberbatch's agile way with words and inherent sharpness make him a perfect Frankenstein, unlike the less cerebral more body oriented JLM. Thus, to see the play at it's most moving and thematically consistent, one should see JLM as the Creature, and Cumberbatch as Frankenstein. :) - Steve | 15 Mar 11 |
| poor customer service for the show. I had to return a ticket for Frankenstein. They refused over the phone to take it back as I couldn't post the ticket itself back in time. Nevertheless I tried although still very dizzy from illness, and so there was an empty seat, I don't get my money back as the ticket arrived 1 day late (I had announced I sent it back)and I got not even an "Sorry" just the excuses about how flexible they handle return tickets. not good enough when many people can't see a show while several seats are empty. Somebody some spare £45,-??? - Elisabeth | 01 Mar 11 |
| The Olivier auditorium has been ‘dressed’ in distressed dirty cream paper mache. There’s an enormous (and loud!) bell and a light feature with hundreds of bulbs hovering over the stalls. The soundtrack starts whilst you’re still in the foyer. The first scene, when the creature is ‘born’ is mesmerizing – some of the best physical acting (from Jonny Lee Miller on the night we went) I’ve ever seen. He has a child-like quality and vulnerability as he moves around the stage naked, learning to move and walk. If you don’t know the book (and I don’t) there is a lack of clarity in the early scenes – it’s not entirely clear that he has been abandoned, that over a year passes while he befriends the blind man, that he is the mystery man who collects stones and cuts wood on the farm. You do understand all of this later, though ironically at a point when the narrative becomes more conventional and a little dull. If the show has a weak point, it’s Nick Dear’s adaptation which fails in competition with the stagecraft. The production, though, is terrific. It’s all very epic and cinematic (no surprises there then, with Danny Boyle at the helm, joined by some of his movie collaborators) with lots of inventive staging and design, though mostly pleasingly low-tech. There’s fire, pyrotechnics (the sulphur lingers long after the effect!) and dry ice a-go-go and the creature’s make-up is excellent (why no programme credit?). The big bell gets rung, the double revolve gets used and sets and people come up from beneath the stage. Yet despite this, the story does move you and has a lot more depth than any Frankenstein film, with the morals and ethics of the tale to the fore and genuine sympathy for the creature. Jonny Lee Miller is superb as the creature, such that I simply cannot imagine Benedict Cumberbatch taking the role. Then again, I can’t really see Lee Miller as Victor, a role Cumberbatch plays very well with earnestness and passion. The double casting is a great idea but I was patting myself on the back for choosing it this way round – though I suspect people who’ve seen it the other way around are saying the same, which vindicates the idea even more! The show fits the Olivier stage like a glove and proves a very welcome addition to the NT’s repertory. It must be seen by more people, but that does beg the questions of which theatre? - Gareth James | 01 Mar 11 |
| Fantastic show, great staging, music and performances. The comment above about the understudies above is misleading, I saw both Miller and the understudy in the role of Victor and was greatly impressed by each. Of course, the audience was dissapointed not to have both Miller and Cumberbatch on stage, but this only made the performane more impressive - the chemistry between Victor and the creature on Saturday was convincing and comfortable to watch. I still plan to see Cumberbatch in the role of course, and unfortunately I cannot say I enjoyed Elizabeth's understudy so much - very stilted, but still a competant performance, having already played another part. Overall, very excited to see Boyle's next theatre adventure - a must see. - Sam | 01 Mar 11 |
| one of the very worst plays I have ever seen. 4 of the leads were off last night with food poisoning inclunding benedict cumberbatch. The understudy who played Frankenstein to Lee millers monster acted like he was in Les Miserables, shouting every line and waving his arms about. The actress covering for Naomie Harris was appaling. One of the biggest disappointmemnts ever. - Dan | 27 Feb 11 |
| Loved it. JLM as the creature, very physical and childlike at the same time. BC and Frankenstein, a more subtle performance. The chemistry between the two - astonishing! Only weak point was Baron - totally misjudged, wooden, stilted. - Ed | 27 Feb 11 |
| Pretty poor and boring apart from the Creature. I think he took it rather well that his greatest desire was killed by Victor, maybe they should have gone for a cup of tea afterwards. - Andrew | 26 Feb 11 |
| It's a very good show - I went on Saturday afternoon and saw Benedict Cumberbatch as Victor and Jonny Lee Miller as The Creature. The nudity comes as a bit of a shock (but I'm no prude...!) and it's a real credit to the actors that they agreed to do it. Then again, would Frankenstein have seen the need for a primitive covering? Of course not. The production is very impressively staged - and there are a few amazing coups de theatre - but I admit that some of the dialogue is a bit clunky and some of the supporting characters are miscast. Some of the lines are also, perhaps, unintentionally, funny - and in a good way. My criticisms are minor quibbles - we gave the cast a richly deserved standing ovation and I can't wait to see the show again in April - but it's with the same pairing. - Andrew B | 24 Feb 11 |
| A great spectacle, in the best sense of the meaning. Yes, the script has some major weaknesses, some transitions left me wondering "where are we now?" and I do agree with many critics that the supporting cast is rather weak - the script doesn't give them much to work with. Only Karl Johnson as old blind man has a sufficient meaty part. Everything else is between the Creature and Frankenstein which allows both actors to showcase their range of outstanding acting skills. These moments when they discuss philisophy and have their humanity questioned this outweighs any flaws with the storyline. Having seen so far Miller/Creature and Victor/Cumberbatch I am looking forward for the reverse version. With all the techical finesse a modern stage has to offer these 2 hours appear to be far longer - not due to bordedom but the shear amount of effects the audience is litterally embraced with. For people who haven't damaged their hearing yet, or cannot bare massive flash lights or have an issue with nudity, please make the right provisions as it is not to be missed. - Elisabeth | 24 Feb 11 |
| Perhaps they managed the impossible and turned it right around, but when I saw this on a preview night with Cumberbatch as the creature, my entire family and I agreed that it was one of the worst plays we ever sat through. Appalling script. - John | 24 Feb 11 |
| yet another lame review by Coveney. I really don't understand why this website still has him as their main reviewer. He hasn't got a clue. - JGW | 24 Feb 11 |
| An extraordinary piece of theatre, not without its faults, but never the less thrilling. I saw Benedict Cumberbatch as the creature...my god what actors endure for their art. He gives a powerful and yet touching performance as Frankenstein's "hideous" creation - not so hideous in the first scene either which he plays completely nude...and I can report he has a very buff body - well done to Dr Frankenstein? The staging is terrific and with a massive, mirrored lighting display over the audience with more bulbs than the whole of Ingolstadt the auditorium was, at times, lit so brightly one needed sunglasses and an asbestos hat to protect from the heat! Cumberbatch's performance is a tour de force and he rightly got a standing ovation last night. It could have been just Hammer House of Horror but with Danny Boyle's deft hand it is Shakesperian in its dimension. He makes a tremendous impact with this, his directing debut, at the NT. - rds | 19 Feb 11 |
