Victor Frankenstein - D

Quick Hit: Sad to see a Hollywood revisionist take that adds nothing to the original story at all, when it is actually hinged on some interesting stuff.

I love horror. Stephen King is my favorite author, and much of my style is derived from him. I also have delved into many other horror authors, including all the classics, from H.P. Lovecraft to the author of our current tale: Mary Shelley. However, the movie that ends up before you is a shell of the wonderfully crafted gothic novel that was originally conceived in a dark house as part of a story contest between friends (and lovers).

There have been lots and lots of movies based upon Frankenstein; or The 

Modern Prometheus. Some of them are great (Young Frankenstein, Universal Studio’s Frankenstein) and some of them are not at all. This, unfortunately, falls into the latter category. Everything that made the novel and other stories great – a discussion of whether man should have and use the God-like powers bestowed upon them by science, whether life can be created for our own perverted uses – are conspicuously absent in the film. Indeed, the main character in this movie is not Frankenstein, but Igor (a character who wasn’t in the novel and came about in latter film adaptations).

Radcliffe : "I thought I was supposed to be a hunchback" McAvoy: "Be quiet, the film is named after me:"

That isn’t a bad thing, per se. Some movies can distance themselves from the book and make their own mark. And I liked the casting of the film. Though Daniel Radcliffe as an actor continues to confuse me (is he a good actor or a bad one? ​ ​Still not sure through 

10 films and counting), he is at least serviceable in the rule, albeit boring as it is. ​James McAvoy shines and is delightfully over the top at times as the title character (expect lots of spittle and yelling). He acts as a good foil to the much more boring Igor. Andrew Scott (Moriarity from the terrific BBC show Sherlock – which is at times an obvious influence of this movie) is at times the most interesting person in the film, but is lumped into a faith role that diminishes his effectiveness. 

Faith vs. Science is a debate I struggle with every day, and I don’t understand why this was shoehorned into the movie. You could make a whole movie focusing on this point – don’t just throw it away.

​Other unnecessary elements include Frankenstein’s motives,  the silly romance story, Igor's beginnings (which are quickly forgotten), 

This dude really does have a scary voice though. And weirdly sculpted eyebrows.

etc. I think there are a lot of ways this movie could have been more interesting, but it kept losing its thread.  I thought the film had a really clear view of how things should have looked. The use of blues and gothic architecture added to the experience, and it is easy to see that the director had a vision for the sets. 

​It’s just too bad he couldn’t have had one for the rest of the movie. I give this movie a D.

Just look at that wasted hammy goodness.

For more on this movie, check out IMDB.