Nat Qu First of all, let me say straight away that I was compelled to write this review after reading a few long 10 star reviews for this movie. Sorry, but I can't explain the existence of these reviews in any way other than the filmmakers' friends and other interested parties singing praise without any substance. I was not profoundly disgusted by this movie, but there is simply no way on earth that anyone would objectively give it 10 stars. Praising this plot because it apparently connects to where the novel leaves it? Are you even serious?The good sides of this movie is the actors being reasonably professional (not to be confused with a very limited effort at character development), the video quality and the scenery. "B" for the effort to go all the way to some cabin in the coldness. You can see that the filmmakers had the money to spend on stuff such as good clothes, renting the snowmobiles, and as I said, the camera-work was professional (no shaky "hidden footage" bs). On the other hand, there are absolutely no special effects. The entire volume of "blood" in the movie probably was recreated with one tiny package of sriracha sauce with a highly questionable result. I sighed when they find "blood traces" that looked like someone had a paper cut.There was so much to do potentially in terms of the plot. Just a few ideas that crossed my mind while watching: 1) discover that it was actually a real bear, while building the tension around the guy's obsession with the Frankenstein theory; 2) discover that it is a Frankenstein monster with an objective, say, to pull body parts from the victims in order to "replenish" his constitution; 3) have the monster actually respond in some fashion to the guy's efforts to connect to him. But hey, let's just leave it with a big guy who apparently feels the need to dress like a human, but will avoid the humanity at any cost and kill any person who encounters him. And btw, would also have a completely irrational idea to first mess up with the people in the cabin by stealing their snowmobiles. What. Why. I didn't give this movie one star because the scenery was nice, the actors gave it a good try, so it's not "awful" per se, but two stars fit it nicely.Also, what the hell? I watched it because it was recommended as similar to the "Dyatlov Pass Incident". DPI is quite an interesting movie, but I found no similarities. Again, gotta be the filmmakers' friends desperately trying to spread the word to get people to watch this rather sad effort.What lesson do we learn? I don't regret the time I spent watching, but I regret the money filmmakers wasted on this without having a good story to tell, when the money could be spent on so many useful causes.

RJ I went into this movie with high hopes. I'd read the positive blurbs about it and decided to give it a go. Boy, was I deceived.The premise is very promising. A team of aspiring filmmakers decide to follow a young professor on a journey to Canada's Northwestern Territories. Except, the twist here is a bit different. The young professor is called Jonathan Venkenheimer, a descendant of one doctor Johann Venkenheimer, popularly referred to as doctor Frankenstein. That's right, the one with the monster.Jonathan is convinced the monster was real, showing the film crew copies of letters that formed the introduction of Mary Shelley's famous novel. The letters Jonathan found are those of a Captain Walton to his sister, a man who found the emaciated Dr. Frankenstein in the Arctic. Accompanying the letters is an old drawing of the Monster, giving us a first glimpse at what it looks like.On the first leg of the journey, the crew visits a young man who once saw the Monster himself and shows him a copy of the drawing. The man freaks out and pulls a gun on the crew. Once this is peacefully resolved, the crew realizes that the young man is a meth user, probably a dealer, and so they discount his testimony immediately.As the crew continues they meet their guide Karl, who thinks it's nonsense but since money is money decides to come with after all, provided they do what he tells them. Before long the group reaches a hut that hunters use while out here, with the nearest other building some 60 kilometers (that's 37 miles) away. Later that night, Jonathan explains how he came to track the creature to Canada. Every two months people inexplicably disappear. Jonathan links this to migratory patterns of caribou, who are in that general area. He combines these two facts into a theory: the Monster is alive and kills to protect himself, while feeding on the caribou. Queue sleepytime.This is the start for some buildup we are very familiar with. Scary noises in the distance (wolves in this case as well as the Monster itself, explained away as a bear by Karl) coupled with night-vision camera followed by footprints and destroyed equipment in the morning leads to stress. Karl claims the gear was destroyed by someone playing a prank on them and goes into a nearby thicket from where he of course does not return.The story here turns into the classic ten little Indians story as one by one the crew is picked off. A dead Karl is found in the thicket, later one of the crew is found dead by another who is in turn picked off. And so on.In the end, after only he and the girl are left, Jonathan decides to confront the Monster himself, talking to him. Pushing his luck, the young professor insists on touching it and gets ripped apart while the girl waits in the hut. A few moments later the Monster kicks in the door and we see the Monster go after the girl, pick her up and carry her out. Roll credits.Yes. That was really all there is to it. It is a typical found-footage movie with night-vision camera, hysterical women, and things that go bump in the night. The camera work was shoddy, though this is to be expected. The acting was bad. In fact, I remembered literally no names, other than the professor's. The actors made no impression on me whatsoever. Worse yet, they couldn't even stay in character. Multiple times one of the actors is addressed with his real name, not even his movie name.This movie had so much potential. With a back story like this, Frankenstein's Monster as the creature feature of the week, the film makers had one of the best novels from the Gothic period as source material. But instead they waste it on a movie like this. This is essentially a Bigfoot movie, with the scary noises (such as howls, projectiles like rocks and logs being thrown, as well as knocking like Sasquatches are meant to do) in the woods, other animals being afraid of the Monster, and the creature carrying off a woman to possibly be his forest bride, you have one hell of a potentially awesome story that ultimately fails. Even as a regular Bigfoot movie this would have been a bust.

Moneyshane Watched this hoping it could possibly be a hidden gem but after 30 minutes in I was bored despite this I watched anyway You see the creature for about 30-45 secs in total throughout the film if anything I wouldn't recommend this to my worst enemy and it is that bad it almost feels like a p**s take of the Frankenstein legend. No one in this film recognisable and poor storyline and acting I feel sorry for anyone that has actually paid for this The creature itself that you do eventually get a glimpse of looks more like Bigfoot than the Frankenstein monster we know in today's legend Frankenstein himself would wish for death seeing this

slymold I have researched the novel and taught Frankenstein at the university level for a number of years. I have also read the novel at least fifteen times, so I regard this film as an intertextual work rather than a stand-alone work, and that probably makes a huge difference. As far as I know, no successful film adaptations of the novel exists. Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" is interesting, but ultimately it is a howler of a B movie thanks largely to Branagh's decision to make Victor Frankenstein a wholly admirable character. "The Frankenstein Theory" illuminates the novel just as much, or more, than Branagh's film.The film is a sequel to the novel. At the end of the novel, the "creature" jumps off a ship near the North Pole and bounds over the ice, having promised that he will build a funeral pyre and kill himself in the Arctic wastes. But does he? That's the question that drives the story of the film.The writer/director obviously knew the novel as well as its biographical background. Jonathan reflects the monomaniacal determination of Victor Frankenstein. His backstory--expulsion from Oxford--also refers to the biography of Mary Shelley's husband, Percy. References to Percy Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and to Mozart's Requiem--a commissioned work that ultimately became the composer's own requiem--create some clever textual layering. Percy Shelley presaged his own death, as does Jonathan and his crew in the act of documenting their pursuit of their own killer. Some of the tension of the frame story of the novel is captured, too: Victor Frankenstein has been rescued by Robert Walton, a captain with a hired crew bound for the North Pole (which had not yet been discovered). The film crew in "The Frankestein Theory" are analogous to Walton's nearly mutinous crew.The premise of documentation is also meaningful in relation to the novel. Like many works of Gothic fiction, the novel is presented as an epistolary narrative--a documentation of "true" events. It is composed of some letters by Walton and a transcript of the story that Victor Frankenstein tells to Walton. At least one previous IMDb reviewer claimed that this entire film is a rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project," and, while I see the similarity, I think this misses the point. "The Blair Witch Project" and many other contemporary horror films (e.g., "The Ring" and "Paranormal Activity") foreground the act of documentation--a conceit they owe to Gothic literature. This film is the only one I know that actually acknowledges and plays knowingly with that debt.Let's not stop there. "The Frankenstein Theory" plays with a couple other visual genres as well--the mockumentary (especially "The Incident at Loch Ness") and reality television shows based on wilderness survival. It also offers a delightful homage to "Jaws." The guide, Carl, played by an uncanny double for Viggo Mortensen, delivers a comic drunken story that parallels the terrific sailor's tale spun by Anthony Quinn in Spielberg's film.Finally, let's face it...the Frankenstein story has never been truly terrifying in any of its manifestations. The novel is certainly creepy, but it's mainly a novel of ideas. This film should be credited for combining brainy intertextuality, comedy, and at least a few mild thrills. It's certainly not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but that's not the point. It IS the scariest media representation of the Frankenstein myth I've seen, with the possible exception of Blade Runner--another brainy, intertextual film.