CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.2/10
871
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaIn this horrifying, modern retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a neurosurgeon, obsessed with the reanimation of dead flesh, murders his patients and resurrects the corpse.In this horrifying, modern retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a neurosurgeon, obsessed with the reanimation of dead flesh, murders his patients and resurrects the corpse.In this horrifying, modern retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, a neurosurgeon, obsessed with the reanimation of dead flesh, murders his patients and resurrects the corpse.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Thomas Downey
- Dr. Robert Walton
- (as Tom Downey)
Joel Ezra Hebner
- The Creature
- (as Joel Hebner)
- …
Dan Kaplan
- Detective Ferrati
- (as Dan Tana)
Tim Travers
- Detective Nimby
- (as Timothy Travers)
Monique Jones
- Susie
- (as Alison Johnston)
Kandis Fay
- Mez
- (as Kandis Erickson)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Granted, I didn't really harbor much of any expectations to a movie titled "Frankenstein Reborn", as it just oozed of low budget. But still, as it was a movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I opted to give the movie a fair chance.
But I am sure that most of us agree that the Mary Shelley "Frankenstein" story has been used beyond the threshold of what is acceptable in movies already. And with the rather dull and laughable adaptation that writer and director Leigh Scott managed to do, it felt like a mockery of Shelley's classic tale.
I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie. Though I will say that the acting performances weren't all that bad.
The audio in the movie was all over the place. In some of the scenes you had to struggle to hear what was being said, because the audio was so insanely low. And in other scenes it was just amped up. That was very amateurish and dragged the movie down a notch.
Visually then "Frankenstein Reborn" was okay. It certainly managed to keep the movie somewhat afloat.
I wasn't impressed with this movie, much less overly entertained. There are far, far better adaptations of the classic "Frankenstein" story out there.
My rating of "Frankenstein Reborn" lands on a three out of ten stars.
But I am sure that most of us agree that the Mary Shelley "Frankenstein" story has been used beyond the threshold of what is acceptable in movies already. And with the rather dull and laughable adaptation that writer and director Leigh Scott managed to do, it felt like a mockery of Shelley's classic tale.
I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie. Though I will say that the acting performances weren't all that bad.
The audio in the movie was all over the place. In some of the scenes you had to struggle to hear what was being said, because the audio was so insanely low. And in other scenes it was just amped up. That was very amateurish and dragged the movie down a notch.
Visually then "Frankenstein Reborn" was okay. It certainly managed to keep the movie somewhat afloat.
I wasn't impressed with this movie, much less overly entertained. There are far, far better adaptations of the classic "Frankenstein" story out there.
My rating of "Frankenstein Reborn" lands on a three out of ten stars.
The film was made in 9 days and it shows. In particular, the budget obviously wasn't large enough to cover a decent recording system. Through out the film in scenes of dialog (and for a horror film there are a LOT of scenes of dialog), the character in screen is recorded loud and clear and the off screen, second voice is inaudible.
Music video-style fast cuts and scene shifts that move backwards and forwards in time are not so much confusing as meant to try and downplay the lack of much plot or its illogic.
The cast is generally quite good and makes a good attempt to overcome the inadequacies of the script and production.
Music video-style fast cuts and scene shifts that move backwards and forwards in time are not so much confusing as meant to try and downplay the lack of much plot or its illogic.
The cast is generally quite good and makes a good attempt to overcome the inadequacies of the script and production.
While of course a low budget movie, I think, if judged by these standards, "Frankenstein Reborn" is a decent film. Naturally, it follows the story of old Frankenstein, however the modernization of circumstances surrounding the characters puts this film a notch above many retellings of Frankenstein. I love how Walton, the ship captain, is replaced with Walton, the head doctor of a psych ward. Little changes like this prevent the film from having the appearance of trying to be something it cannot; much like Coppolla's 1994 version. The acting is pretty amazing for a B flick like this, and the story is surprisingly accurate. This film is probably the book that Mary Shelley would've written were she alive today.
Ultimately, "Frankenstein Reborn" is among the highest of films of it's kind, I would recommend it to anyone seeking out good bad-movies, of which this film almost transcends.
Ultimately, "Frankenstein Reborn" is among the highest of films of it's kind, I would recommend it to anyone seeking out good bad-movies, of which this film almost transcends.
when i see a movie review with such polarized opinion, i want to give it a chance. i bought this as a previously viewed DVD from a national video rental chain and only paid $5. not worth the $5. all the bad has been said already.
the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.
i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.
this one's going in the garage sale pile.
the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.
i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.
this one's going in the garage sale pile.
Where to begin? First off, most of the film is flashbacks. Second, the beginning was stupid, and third, a lot of boring dialog and bad actors. The monster is quite disturbing and so is his roar. They had small parts like when a woman is shown for 2 minutes and is killed. There was parts when i felt like turning it off but I had nothing else to do. After the credits end, there is a minute of the screen pitch black and the music still going. I bet it was to make the movie a minute longer. I gave it a 3, because I like b-horror films,i like Frankenstein movies and you have to give Leigh some credit. My recommendation: if you see it at the video store, tell a person working there that it is a waste of money for you to rent that. So stay away as far as possible. Don't say I didn't warn you.
¿Sabías que…?
- Créditos curiosos"The events, characters, and firms depicted in this photoplay are fictitious. Really. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving, and/or staying away from labs run by psychos."
- ConexionesFollowed by The Beast of Bray Road (2005)
- Bandas sonorasSweet Intoxication
Written and Performed by Eliza Swenson
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 500,000 (estimado)
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was La reencarnación de Frankestein (2005) officially released in India in English?
Responda