jacobjohntaylor1 This is a Frankenstein sequel. Most of the time Frankenstein sequels are good. But this one is not. In this movie the monsters is the hero and Doctor Frankenstein is the bad guy. I don't think I care for that to mush. This one doctor Frankenstein and the monster live into modern times. The monster meet a female cop. And there are both trying to stop the evil doctor Frankenstein. The book and older movies. Doctor Frankenstein is good guy. And the monster is the bad guy. So I real don't care for it. It not very scary. Bad story line. Bad acting. Skip it. This is pooh pooh. Don't wast your money. Do wast your time. Do not see this movie.

ma-cortes The film deals about the Detectives O'Conner(Parker Posey, Superman returns) and Sloan(Adam Goldberg, The Salton sea)are investigating grisly killings by a macabre serial-killer mutilating the victims. Also, a tough policeman(Michael Madsen, Free Willy)named Harker(homage to Jonathan Harker-Dracula) does inquiry on the horrific events. Meantime, she finds a mysterious man named Deucalion(Vincent Perez,Fanfan LaTulipe) who warns her about a megalomaniac Doctor(Thomas Kretschman, The pianist)named Victor Helios. Doctor Helios is actually Dr. Frankestein(originally created by Mary Shelley) still alive along with his sweetheart(Ivana Milicevic).This television movie displays tension, mystery, thriller and eerie scenes when the murders and tortures take place. The film takes accent as the suspense as the terror. The plot for this TV picture was initially adapted by famous terror novelist Dean Koontz(Demon seed, Watchers, Phantoms) and attempted as a television series. Koontz was hired as writing credits and executive producer along with Martin Scorsese, but economic and plot disputes among Cable Network and Koontz, made both left the project, for that reason the screenplay gets flaws and gaps , furthermore,the movie final conclusion is ¨deja vu¨. The picture contains a creepy musical score fitting to the horror film by Norman Corbeil and Angelo Baladamenti, plus , a gloomy and sinister cinematography with frightening atmosphere by Daniel Pearl. The motion picture is professionally directed by Marcus Nispel, director of the much better ¨The Texas chainsaw massacre¨ and usually video-clips filmmaker and occasionally director, being his last film, ¨The pathfinder¨, also with dark and shady scenarios, as habitual in all his movies.

gavin6942 A security guard turns up dead and an autopsy finds he has two hearts, bones like concrete and other abnormalities that would essentially make him live forever. More murders happen, and soon the police believe that not only do more men like the security guard exist but that they were, in fact, created by another man rather than born as such.Director Marcus Nispel is good at one thing in particular: making his films look like rich oil paintings. His take on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was beautiful (even if the film itself sputtered) and "Pathfinder" is more visual than cerebral in every respect. A great choice for the new film "Alice", I think Nispel honed his skills on "Frankenstein". It comes across as the more grim and artistic interpretation of "Seven", which I mean in every possible good way.The movie's failings are something I cannot really place on the shoulders of the director or the cast. Because by far the biggest flaw was the truncation of what could have been a television series (and was supposed to be) into a movie. Questions are answered too quickly killing a good mystery, more questions are raised but never addressed (in fact, hundreds) and this comes together with an ending that begs for a few sequels or an ongoing series (but, of course, I cannot say what that ending is).Adam Goldberg does a surprisingly decent job here. I am not a fan of his, and do not think he is strong outside the realm of comedy (his best film remains "The Hebrew Hammer"). Here, he comes across as a lovable and able detective who has the necessary failings of a man who falls in love with his partner (at work). He played it straight and I think this was one of his better performances.Michael Madsen is an actor who cult film fans and horror fans just love (probably more because of "Reservoir Dogs" and less because of "Free Willy"). I, also, love this man. And I do not think his fans will be let down here... while his part is small at first, he becomes more prominent as the movie progresses and those things we love about Madsen begin to shine. This may rank as one of his better better roles, possibly his best outside of a Tarantino film.If you see this movie, give it the benefit of the doubt. Some flaws exist, but as I said I think these are more on the part of the network and less due to the creative forces involved. The acting is good, the story is very original and highly interesting and I cannot stress enough just how beautiful the film comes across. Possibly the best interpretation of "Frankenstein" I have seen yet.Recommendation: read Dean Koontz's novels. While I have not, on my second viewing I watched the film with someone who did, and it made a big difference. There is a lot going on behind the scenes and a good deal that had to be left out -- I really wish they had made a sequel or a series, but the novels will have to suffice.

lemon_magic I've never been all that impressed with Dean Koontz' stuff (good plots and characters, but pretty flat prose, dialog, and descriptive passages), so I wasn't expecting much from this, especially given that Koontz withdrew from the project before its completion and the result was "based on" his ideas for the modern day Frankenstein. Still for a TV movie, this is pretty strong stuff, and tries to accomplish some ambitious goals with some success. It seems to try a little too hard in many places, crossing the line between "heated" and "overheated" quite often, which can be hard to avoid given its subject matter (Frankenstein) and it's cinematic inspiration ("Se7en"). I've always had a soft spot for Parker Posey, and it was nice to see her stretch out in a leading role. She doesn't quite have enough "gravitas" to carry the movie, although she is engaging and sympathetic enough to have me rooting for her most of the time, and the guy who plays her partner is adequate to some pretty standard role requirements. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good for a TV movie too...although I'm afraid that Michael Madsen is becoming hopelessly typecast and is developing a bad habit of phoning his roles in. I'll grant you that even Madsen-by-the-numbers is still pretty good, but he's in danger of becoming a cliché of himself. I'm not sorry I spent the time to see it, there were some nice shots and a nice punchy wrap up that left the viewer sort of wishing that there could be a follow up. (That may have happened in the Koontz novels, but I'm not interested enough in Koontz to find out). Not a bad effort. Worth catching for free on cable if you get the chance on a dull night.