George Taylor
Told from the perspective of Igor, this is just a terrible film which seems they took five different scripts, threw them in a blender and then let a bunch of chimps rearrange them (which may be an insult to the chimps), barely recognizable as a Frankenstein film, it's just an utter waste of time. Only I, Frankenstein is worse than this trash.
By-TorX-1
While being less Mary Shelley's and James Whale and more Guy Ritichie's Sherlock, Victor Frankenstein is an entertaining take on the classic tale, albeit one in which the actual Frankenstein activity is somewhat rushed. While essentially a Gothic action movie, the chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy is good, but the film steadily comes apart at the seams (poor stitching?) due to the increasing number of characters that progressively appear, such as the dogged police detective, a romantic love interest, and a hastily tacked on villain with a rather undeveloped motive. As such, the narrative is never fully complete and feels undeveloped in terms of plot. This is especially evident in the finale in which Victor strangely seems to bring his creation to life within a Bond villain's secret lair (that indeed pretty much ends up exploding). Further, the hurried nature of the final act may be due to reedits as Mark Gatiss suddenly appears from nowhere, and has but one brief line, which seems odd if you are going to recruit one of the famed League of Gentleman, so I suspect his role was initially more substantial. However, the reanimated creature gets a little bit of 'Hulk smash!" action, and actually looks pretty good. So, a enjoyable enough film, but In the end even Victor Frankenstein could not fully animate all of the disparate parts and make them come to life, and like the monster chimp that runs amok in said film, it all just kind of runs out of energy.
lmcressia
I did not care for this movie, but that could be because it just wasn't my type of story. It is the tale of Victor Frankenstein and Igor creating the monster, and it focuses primarily on the events leading up to the creation of the monster, with only the last few minutes dealing with the monster itself. If you like Daniel Radcliff you may like this movie. Personally, I saw him as Harry Potter through the whole film. The movie was heavy on story, but I personally felt the story was "meh"... That could be biased, however, since I like comedy and/or action mixed in with the story quite a lot, and this was lacking in both. In any case, this movie was not for me, but it could be good for someone who likes the time period, likes stories rooted in inter- personal relationships, or Daniel Radcliff.
drjgardner
Not really a retelling but an imaginative prequel to the original 1931 Frankenstein film which itself was a major deviation from the book.Some people may think this is a retelling, but by the end of the film it's clear that it is a prequel, though the hints are there all along.The film has much to commend it, including the acting of James McAvoy (Frankenstein), Andrew Scott (Detective Turpin), and Jessica Findlay (Igor's love interest). The music and photography are excellent and the set and costume people create an excellent picture of Victorian London.I particularly liked the idea of the film being told from the POV of Igor.On the negative side, Daniel Radcliffe's performance added very little and the film was a tad too long.There is nothing to match the 1931 original nor the 1935 Bride of Frankenstein, but otherwise this film holds up well against the hundreds of other Frankenstein films. OK. I'm not counting the Abbott and Costello version, which is great.
AD
