TeenzTen
An action-packed slog
Myron Clemons
A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
Lidia Draper
Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.
Erica Derrick
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Granger
This movie presents an interesting twist on the old story... but without the genius of Shelly's tale. It simply presents the original question: are there areas in which science should not venture? However it fails to answer that question, or even present it in a viable format. The name Frankenstein doesn't even apply here. Rather than a creation of intent this is an incident of accident. Lacking someone to blame then, the viewer is left with the question of what point the film maker is trying to make, besides the obvious. The answer at the end of the film is: none.I do believe it's rather well-done as it stands on its own. The story is somewhat riveting once it gets started. There are some areas near the beginning of excessive slowness (how many scenes do we need of someone walking slowly toward an oddly unlocked-door?), but once they get past that stage it keeps the viewer wondering what is going to happen next.What happens next though is that the story goes nowhere. Without spoiling the film, it comes down to the end with just a great big question mark... but no reason to ask the question. In the book there was no doubt: the doctor was the real monster (after all, Frankenstein is the name of the doctor, not the creature). In this presentation there is no monster to speak of. The doctor had no intent of creation, the creature has the mentality of a cornered wild animal, and the government (normally the real monster in such films) is put in a situation that it can only deal with things one way, and it does the best it can under that situation (in typically slimy covert government manner, of course).In short while the film is interesting it doesn't come close to having any real impact, nor does it really make a point. As such it falls into the realm of "mediocre" in all areas of production and barely eeks out a 5 from me. The current average rating is even lower than that, which tells me I'm being somewhat generous in giving it 5 stars. The writers and director tried to make a point, but missed the mark and barely skates by on the name of the film... which has nothing to do with the plot or characters. They could have named this "Monster Among Us" and probably done as well... without raising expectations and lowering potential ratings.
Mike E Monster
**SPOILERS** This modern-day Frankenstein re-envisioning makes for an average horror, with too many elements conveniently thrown together, too quickly, with an ending that seemingly sets up a non-existent sequel. The monster looks more alien than experiment, as well. Still, solid performances throughout make this a passable Frankenstein entry with some genuine tense moments. The nods to past versions - the windmill, the death of little girl, the name of one of the characters - at least show its heart was in the right place.
Paul Andrews
Frankenstein is set in London where genetic scientist Victoria (Helen McCrory) is working on pioneering stem-cell research, however her young son William is dying & will die unless he gets a multiple organ transplant. Wishing to help her son Victoria uses his DNA in her stem-cell research, she sets up an experiment to genetically create the organs he needs. William dies & Victoria decides to abandon the research but her boss Professor Andrew Waldman (Neil Pearson) feels her work is too important to destroy & carries it on. Unfortunately the DNA starts to mutate, it starts to mutate into some humanoid shaped mutant creature. When a power surge cuts the electric in the laboratory the genetically created mutant creature manages to escape into the night...Written & directed by Jeb Mercurio I quite liked this despite having little in common with Mary Shelley's novel from which it takes it's title. Made for & recently aired on British TV I suppose this got the go ahead after a recent spate of classic horror adaptation including Sweeney Todd (2006) with Ray Winstone, the six part series Jekyll (2007) with James Nesbitt & a feature length Dracula (2006) with David Suchet, however Frankenstein doesn't have any 'names' in it & has little connection with it's literally source. For a start no-one is called Frankenstein & for that matter the word Frankenstein is never mentioned once. Then there's the one basic aspect of the novel which the makers of this have seen fit to disregard, the fact that Frankenstein is a man & not a woman. Now, I'm all for equal opportunities for both sexes but Frankenstein is a bloke, he always has been & always will be. Then there's the fact modern genetic techniques are used to create the monster rather than stitching various body parts together which is fine in itself since this is meant to be a contemporary adaptation. At 75 odd minutes it doesn't last too long, it moves along at a reasonable pace, it's pretty entertaining for what it is but it stalls & falters once the Frankenstein monster is captured, there are too many mysterious Government secret service officials dressed in black & I didn't like the abrupt ending either.This looks alright, it's well made but nothing spectacular. The Frankenstein monster is kept hidden for the most part, which once it is actually shown you'll see why. I suppose the look of the monster is supposed to incite sympathy for it but for most it will probably incite laughter, the actual special effect on it is OK. There's a brief nod to the original Frankenstein as the monster here has a paralysing device stuck into his neck which resembles the look of a large bolt! This is also one of the few films I've seen which actually kills a child on screen, not only does the monster kill a young girl who he tries to befriend after she rejects him (another homage or maybe rip-off to the original Frankenstein (1931)?) but it actually show's the monster breaking her neck in a sequence which just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Otherwise there isn't much gore or violence, a few burnt corpses is as graphic as it gets.Frankenstein is an OK way to 75 minutes but don't expect a faithful adaptation because this is anything but, taken in it's own right it's decent enough but nothing overly special.
annemackie
When creating a version of a classic like Frankenstein it is quite acceptable to alter some aspects, however there are certain things which cannot be tampered with and I am not referring to the laws of nature but the laws of drama. I can only assume that writer director Jed Mercurio was unexpectedly restrained either by budget or time slot and was therefore forced to make some serious editorial decisions. Unfortunately he made all the wrong ones. Frankenstein, like King Kong or The Elephant Man only works if there is an emotional connection between the characters and with the audience. Such a connection can only be made through eye contact (the eyes are the key to the soul). Consider how much emphasis Peter Jackson gave to the facial expressions of Kong and its startlingly human nature or John Hurt's eyes of John Merrick. In this version of Frankenstein the eyes of the 'monster' are hardly seen at all and this accounts directly to the failure of the drama. The key scenes are the meeting with the child, mother and son, and on the beach. All these scenes are rushed and thus create no emotion because we only see the eyes of one of the characters. When the 'monster' kills the little girl, (actually shown in full detail, there's a dubious first for British TV and indeed Film drama) the scene is shocking but not as effective as it would have been if the two characters involved had interacted like two children for a little longer. When mother was teaching son, there was no bonding at all, no emotion, no close ups of the 'monster's eyes showing any feeling. Just a cold grey lump of special effect. The final scene on the beach works at all because finally we see a more human side to the 'monster' and the most powerful scene was when we see the 'monster's' face albeit at a distance. Updating the Frankenstein story is all well and good, but abandoning the core theme of the original was a terrible mistake resulting in a disjointed and ultimately very disappointing drama.
