Victor Frankenstein

Does that mean that it's better than others? Maybe not, but maybe you are looking for a new way of telling a story that you are familiar with. Some do not like this, others really cherish the way this movie went. And it's up to the viewer to decide what he wants from a Frankenstein movie. A theme that I'm pretty sure everyone watching has heard of at least, before watching the movie.

Since I haven't read the novel, I'm not sure if some of the "changes" are already in the book, but weren't used before in other adaptations. Both main actors are really good and convey the characters they portray. With all their flaws and downfalls, with all their dreams and hopes. Whether you agree with those or not, this is more than a decent effort and a really good movie

Perhaps the Frankenstein name is indeed cursed, there hasn't been a great Frankenstein based movie in years, even decades. From last year's I, Frankenstein to Van Helsing who only has it as subplot, all have met mediocre fate. Now armed with robust acting power and visual that oozes Victorian era, also a bit or horror and action attached somewhere, another rendition shares the same exact fate; cinematic tediousness.

A slight modification to the narrative is made, just like Sherlock the movie is narrated from the sidekick's perspective, in this case Igor's (Daniel Radcliffe). Aside from that, there's barely anything new that hasn't been done in similar or better fashion. To its credit, it's not utterly terrible in term of presentation, in fact the visual is rather nice. It's quaintly dark and electric version of last decade metropolis, Tesla would approve.

James McAvoy as the titular Viktor really tries hard on establishing the character. Given the stale material, he still manages to squeeze some emotional scenes as well as a good chemistry with Radcliffe in a bromantic kind of way. Andrew Scott from Moriarty fame, now plays the role of Inspector Turpin. He's the polar opposite of Viktor, conservative yet equally clever and ambitious.

Unfortunately, the far too familiar plot fails to produce any thrill, the strong acting prowess ends up rehearsing the same routine of mad scientist's banter. There's screaming, philosophical argument, faux science and slight mental abuse by the two leads. It's a lot of noise of little dramatic effect. Not that the script is bad in any way, it has occasional witty lines although any hint of humor or charm is muffled by the overly melancholy tone.

At some points, the movie tries to dabble in horror, action and even romance subplot. The atmosphere is already primed for thriller, but the shocking abomination is ironically timid and unmemorable. Action consists of a few scenes of slow motions repetition. Despite the production offering distractions, the main story line is very straightforward and streamlined, and sadly also predictable.

For all the star and flair, though they might be mildly amusing, the end product is a medium so lacking of life.

Greetings again from the darkness. If a filmmaker is going to mess with the classics, there are two paths of creativity from which to choose: stay true to the original, or put a new spin on it. In this case, the classics in question are the nearly 200 year old novel from Mary Shelley (1818) and the nearly 85 year old movie from James Whale (1931). The filmmakers doing the messing are director Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin) and screenwriter Max Landis (son of director John). The spin they chose was (in theory) to tell the story from the perspective of Igor, the loyal assistant to Dr. Frankenstein.

It's an interesting approach, but one that immediately presents a problem … since the title they chose was not "Igor", but rather Victor Frankenstein. The film does begin with Igor's backstory in the circus as a hunchbacked clown/amateur doctor, and the character does provide some early and late narration. The conundrum stems from the fact that pretty much everything else in the movie is centered on the mad scientist, rather than the skilled apprentice/partner.

Daniel Radcliffe plays Igor and James McAvoy plays Victor Frankenstein (not Fron-kin-steen, in a nod to Mel Brooks), and both actors seem to be doing everything possible to bring energy and enthusiasm to a movie that can't seem to decide if it's a reboot or a reimagining or simply an origin story. Radcliffe effectively uses his physicality as the circus clown who is so mistreated and misunderstood, and McAvoy is such a hyper-active mad scientist that I'm sure his fellow actors many times were inclined to advise "say it, don't spray it". McAvoy does seem to be having a grand old time playing the brilliant yet unhinged young doctor-to-be, and to his credit takes a much different approach than Colin Clive when he gets to the infamous line "It's ALIVE!" The best parts of the movie are the intricate and amazing sets, the monster himself (albeit too brief), and the expert use of classical music and film score. The circus sets are colorful and active, while Frankenstein's soap factory home/laboratory is fascinating and creative, and the final Scotland castle on a cliff is breath-taking. Pulleys, chains and cranks are everywhere … as is an incredible amount of body parts, organs and fluids.

After a very well done circus opening, we are jarred with a seemingly out of place action sequence involving a slo-motion chase and fight scene that seems to be attempting to mimic some of the recent Sherlock Holmes movie stunts. Here they are unwelcome and ruin the flow. Another aspect that seems forced and unnecessary is a romantic interlude between Igor and a trapeze artist (played by Jessica Brown Findlay). It feels like an add-on to remind us that it's supposed to be Igor's story. Additionally, Andrew Scott plays an intriguing Scotland Yard Inspector who is every bit as obsessed with his faith-based beliefs as Victor is with his science-has-no-bounds stance. A story told from the Inspector's perspective might have worked, but instead it comes across as another add-on. Another add-on is the filthy rich and very devious fellow med student (played by Freddie Fox) who agrees to fund the experiments, but mostly the character is an after-thought necessary to move the plot along. Wasted is the always menacing Charles Dance, who has but one scene as Victor's strongly disapproving daddy.

A combination of the romance, minimal role of Igor in the grand finale, the medical school bumbling, the clunky Inspector involvement, and the all too brief monster appearance makes the film all but impossible for viewers to connect. They tell us twice "You know the story … a crack of lightning, a mad genius, and an unholy creation", but the reality is, the fact that we know the story, makes this one all the more disappointing. It's fun to look at, but is lacking the depth and soul that has allowed Shelley's book to stand up over two centuries.

The opening shot, blurry, a figure moving in slow motion, brought to my mind a scene in the book of the monster seen going across the snow- covered landscape from a distance, ... but that is about as close to the book as the film gets, which is both good and bad. It's good because it tells an original take on the story, but it's also bad because it tells a mostly satirical story, told from Igor's perspective, largely poking fun at the clichés in the various film versions of Frankenstein, rather than a faithful adaptation of the novel.

James McAvoy hams it up as Victor Frankenstein, with a brilliant intro ("Might I know your name?" Igor asks him, Vic turns to look at Igor, freeze frame, title appears) while the rest of the cast downplays it nicely, Jessica Findlay is quite attractive, even in the unrevealing Victorian-era clothing. The film is sightly more serious than its comedic-looking trailer made it appear. Good sets and costumes, and some quick witted, sharp dialogue, but the story never really comes alive (pun totally intended)

Curiously released at Thanksgiving 2015, it might have fared better than its $600.000 opening if it had been released at Halloween. Considering this was filmed in late 2013, it surely must have been ready for Halloween 2015, or 2014 for that matter.

It's the story of Professor Frankenstein and his creation as you'd expect, but it's primarily the study of Igor, his man servant, we get his history, his present, and a glimpse into his future.

It's a very good film, it's very nicely made, beautifully acted, it's a very nice gothic drama. I would argue it's not a horror as the classification states, if you are wanting lots of Monster action there isn't a great deal of that, what there is looks fantastic.

Great special effects, particularly at the dramatic finale, it looks terrific.

Not sure which of the two was billed as the star of the show, maybe an equal billing, but Radcliffe is excellent. I love how on occasion you hear McAvoy's wonderful Scottish accent peep through.

Clever and well made, 7/10.