Log in / Sign up
 
    Share this page

    Victor Frankenstein

    Reviewed by
    adamwatchesmovies@

    So Bad it’s good rating: 4/5

    Hook up Mary Shelley’s grave to a turbine because she’s spinning in her grave so energetically you could generate enough voltage to bring your own monster to life! I’ve seen my share of adaptations of the 1818 novel over the years. From the monster battling a giant subterranean dinosaur (“Frankenstein Conquers the World”) to great films that had only a few points in common with the novel (Universal’s 1931 “Frankenstein” film) all the way to truly insane plots that included time travel and the author basing her works on a true story (“Frankenstein Unbound”) I’m a huge fan of the novel but I can let go of the source material if the end results are good. I wanted to give this one a chance. More than that, I wanted to have a good time. Well I did, but solely at this calamity's expense.

    They made vampires sexy, werewolves sexy, Dracula sexy and finally, Frankenstein’s Monster sexy. Finally, it’s Ygor’s turn. Oh I’m sorry, it’s Igor (notice the spelling difference; I’ve got a theory on that one) Daniel Radcliff plays Igor, a man who finds himself assisting Victor Frankenstein (James McAvoy) on his quest to create life in his own image. While the two piece together their experiments, a suspicious inspector (Andrew Scott) is on their tail.

    This is the kind of bad movie that is fascinating to watch because there are so many missteps throughout. I feel like a mad genius myself, overly exciting at the prospect of creating something despite the fact that it’s 1:00 am and I need to get up early for work tomorrow. Do I start with the acting? The story? The nonsense? The conspiracy theory? Just thinking about it makes my fingers itch in anticipation. This movie sucks big time but it is a treat to discuss and I’m certain that I will be viewing it again with my friends for bad movie night.

    “Victor Frankenstein” takes the benefit of the doubt that I gave it and crushes its windpipe until it is cold and lifeless. Aside from the fact that we’ve got a creature that is brought to life and pieced together from corpses, this has absolutely nothing to do with Mary Shelley’s novel. The monster is a brute that goes on a killing spree, key characters like Elizabeth or Henry Clerval are gone, new characters are added for inexplicable reasons (like an older brother for Victor named Henry) and we’ve even got some bonus monsters thrown in for the heck of it. This 2015… horror? Drama? Comedy? (maybe) makes “Dragon Ball Evolution” look like “Sin City”. I’ll be fair and give a pass to Igor because hey, he’s the main character (although you wouldn’t be able to tell from the title of the film) There’s no reason why two new villains and a romantic subplot for Igor needed to be in this movie though!

    I don’t even understand how a plot this bad came about. So many people despised the 2015 “Fantastic Four” that I figured maybe the story by Max Landis is what made “Chronicle” so great because he wrote the screenplay for that film. Seeing his signature on this story though, it baffles my mind. Maybe he and Josh Trank are like three left turns. Together they make a right but apart you’re going in the opposite direction. Some quick plot points I noticed as awfully convenient included Victor Frankenstein just handily having a brace to help Igor look a whole lot sharper for his lady friend (he just had it lying around); them being able to procure body parts for their creation out of thin air, even in the middle of nowhere; the police being incompetent one moment and then amazingly good to the point of having ninja-like skills the next and similarly having villains so bad at assassinations that they can’t wrap their minds around the fact that heavy things tend to sink.

    This story hardly makes any sense and furthermore, it misses the point of “Frankenstein” not only as a novel, but also as cautionary tale and a concept entirely. It’s been bugging me to no end but I haven’t really found a place to write bring it up so I’ll just say it here. Victor Frankenstein does not bring the dead back to life! His monster is not a zombie! Frankenstein is a scientist who seeks to defy God by creating life in his own image, independent of natural birth. “I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter” or as Colin Clive put it “Now I know what it feels like to BE God! ” An alternate title to the book is “The Modern Prometheus”. Why? Because Prometheus was a Titan from Greek mythology who created man and defied the Gods by giving man fire and paid dearly for it. The parallels to the novel are obvious and you don’t need me to dissect that further. It doesn’t apply to this picture in any fashion whatsoever anyway. It’s as if the people putting this film together never read the novel and have no idea what it’s truly about, instead basing all of their knowledge on the 1931 film, which varies significantly from the source material. It manages to fail at the most basic of all levels by calling the monster “Prometheus”!

    I have a theory and call me crazy, but I think it’s legitimate. This movie sucks, no doubt about it. It’s got James McAvoy chewing scenery so much he’s constantly spitting at the screen, a crazy rat man at the circus, a bad guy with an eye patch, the trailer even mentioned an army of unkillable monsters (somehow that scene ended up on the cutting room floor, possibly because they saw “Frankenstein’s Army”) and the hunchback Igor being turned into a sexy scientist. It also borrows from Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” by having the good doctor instantly recognize where humans and animals' organs are and how to sew them up (or take them apart), complete with visual aides for the audience. Toss in some of that super scientific analytic kung-fu moves for whenever he needs to get into a fistfight. The creature that people are coming in is hardly on-screen at all. “Victor Frankenstein” only has one thing going for it, that it’s original for this tale to be told from Igor’s viewpoint. So the big question remains. Why was the movie made and released in November of all months instead of the dumping ground that is January or February?

    I’ve got a reason for you, and that goes back all the way to the classic Universal Monster Movies and “Dracula Untold”. That’s right. Universal. This is a 20th Century Fox film. Rivalry, and an attempt to sabotage a franchise is what I think this is. Think about it. What’s the Marvel Universe? A collection of films that cross over, draws in all sorts of different characters and demographics to tremendously successful box office results. Universal has had that sort of thing since the 40’s with “Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man” and “House of Dracula”. Fox wanted to prevent such an epic venture from happening again! I can picture it now as the film was being announced way back in 2011. “We’ve got to put a stop to this!” said 20th Century Fox “Those Avengers movies are already killing at the box office, we don’t want to compete with ANOTHER franchise, not when that Vin Diesel car thing is starting to run out of gas and we don’t really have any other big franchises happening (I guess we could bring people back to ‘Jurassic Park’ somehow) How can we make sure it never happens?” a mischievous grin appears on the face of a lowly creative genius “What if we pre-emptively sabotage ‘Frankenstein’? We make our own movie so bad that no one will want to look at anything tied to Mary Shelley’s novel! It’s public domain, so why not? And look! If we put a character named Igor in the movie, people will confuse him for Ygor, someone that didn’t even appear in the 1931 movie! Throw in an inspector with a wooden hand like the guy in ‘Son of Frankenstein’ and give the monster a flat head, toss in a couple of ‘It’s ALIVE! ’, add ‘Henry Frankenstein’ and BAM! We’ll fool the masses! We might even make some money out of this poop script! ”

    I foresee “Victor Frankenstein” being a blast to watch with some tipsy friends because there are so many blunders. If you’re not convinced, even at the 95-minute mark, the ending is so nutty you’ll have to surrender and admit defeat. I will give it that it’s never boring and the special effects are pretty cool though. Plus I like the actors, even when they’re hamming it up. I’m sticking with my story that they’re trying to pull a crazy scheme on you by releasing this picture to theatres, and in 3D no less! I give it extra negative points for butchering the source material. I’m legitimately concerned. Will there come a day when there are so many bad adaptations of “Frankenstein” that the good ones are difficult to find? Will people be surprised if they pick up the novel, read it and discover that it is revolutionary and intelligent? Let’s hope not. (2D Theatrical version on the big screen, November 25, 2015)

    2
    HelpfulNot helpful  Reply
    adamwatchesmovies@  27.11.2015 age: 26-35 2,867 reviews

    A most excellent review.

    HelpfulNot helpful Reply
    r.patenaude@  28.11.2015 age: 26-35 3 reviews

    Thank you for the kind compliments. If you want more, check me out on tumblr @ Adamwatchesmovies.

    HelpfulNot helpful Reply
    adamwatchesmovies@  29.11.2015 age: 26-35 2,867 reviews

    Show all reviews for this movie
    Note: The texts posted on this page reflect personal opinions of our users. We are not responsible for their content.

    Did you see ''Victor Frankenstein''?

    There is a problem with your e-mail address and we are unable to communicate with you. Please go to My Account to update your email.

    How do you rate this movie?

    Select stars from 1 to 10.
    10 - A masterpiece, go, see it now
    9 - Excellent movie, a must see
    8 - Great movie, don't miss it
    7 - Good movie, worth seeing
    6 - Not bad, could be much better
    5 - So so, okay if you don't pay
    4 - Not good, even if you don't pay
    3 - Poor movie, not recommended
    2 - Very bad, forget about it
    1 - Worst ever, avoid at all costs

    Please explain. Write your comment here:

    Please choose a username to sign your comments. Only letters, digits, dash - or period. Minimum 4 characters.

    Your age and sex:

    We publish all comments, except abusive, at our discretion.