Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
MoPoshy
Absolutely brilliant
Raymond Sierra
The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Nigel P
"I looked into the eyes and there was nothing there!"It would be unpleasant of me to direct this quote from Lorelei (Jessica Brown Findlay) towards James McAvoy's performance as Frankenstein, but it isn't without a certain truth here. As with his turn in 2016's inexplicably acclaimed 'Split', his every movement, intonation, posture, grin and gesticulation never lets us forget he is acting. With sentences instilled with dangerous singularity, McAvoy spits out the words in textbook eccentric, rapid staccato. He is indulged by Paul McGuigan's excellent direction and looks great, but rather like a stage turn projecting to the back rows, there is not one ounce of anything naturalistic about his Victor Frankenstein. Perhaps it is deliberate; the confidence, bravura, enthusiasm, heightened unreality might be traits attributed to Frankenstein - or to these heightened performances in general - but unlike co-star Daniel Radcliffe's Igor (for example, and other characters too), we never *know* him, never like/dislike him, never really care for him, not even when the truth is revealed about his brother (Henry, brother of Victor: two of the most often-used names for Baron Frankenstein over the decades). As with all things, I can only offer my opinion on this.The long-awaited creation scene is spectacular. Occasionally threatening to lose hold of reality, it nevertheless takes advantage of modern filming technology; we can actually travel along the power-lines with the electrodes as they head for the inanimate creature. Whereas the first experiment involved a hellish and extremely effective chimpanzee amalgamation, the eventual human monster is battered and torn by the elements even before (or perhaps during) a time when life has been given him. A clay-like golem, he is a spectacle, but has no time to be anything more. An enhanced, stomping killer hulk that brings the house down.In two pleasing (deliberate or otherwise) nods to past glories, the police inspector Roderick Turpin (Andrew Scott) loses a hand (à la one-armed Inspector Krogh from 1939's 'Son of Frankenstein') and the monster is animated only to wreck the laboratory and bring things to a close of sorts (à la the monster rallies at the end of the 1930/40's Universal run of pictures). Despite my reservations about McAvoy's performance, I enjoyed this a lot. It breathes new life into the pioneering story, which is no mean feat after all these decades, whilst never losing the guiding light of Mary Shelley's original novel.
rolonthomas
Because it did so poorly in the movie theaters (maybe it was released along side some blockbusters . . I don't know), I didn't expect much. That being said I'm always interested in a twist on a familiar story. THIS DELIVERED! Igor's perspective.I've never liked Daniel Radcliffe in anything (especially Swiss Army Man) but I have always been a fan of James MacAvoy. They both deliver! The only reason I didn't give it a better rating was because I had hoped for a better ending. Who knows, maybe they were holding out for a sequel . . . ?Enjoy this one.
wemdalu
I love Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy, and the two for me were just spectacular! Their Acting was amazing! I particularly loved the dialogue and the dark and sinister feel of the beginning scenes. Daniel played quite a convincing hatchback lol. For some reason I liked the story been told from his point of view. Another interesting bit is when you are from a place like Ghana in West Africa, you don't grow up knowing much about America myths (because of course you have your own country specific myths to worry about) so a story like Frankenstein's was known to me wayyyyy older in my life, and frankly all I can remember about it is the Monster not the Man. This adaptation, for me reveals somewhat the MAN not so much the monster.
mrnunleygo
Notwithstanding a good cast, this version of the Frankenstein story didn't work for me at all. I'm OK with re-imagining of a novel if something is gained from it, but there really was nothing in this rather sharp deviation that added anything to Mary Shelly"s novel. I will kindly award it a "three" for some nice sets, costumes, and imagery, but the overall story was pretty empty. The final appearance of "the monster" and the efforts to neutralize him were particularly uninspiring. An episode of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers probably has similar levels of depth and suspense.
