La reencarnación de Frankestein

I have seen this film and was expecting something quite good, but its the worst film I have seen in a long time, the acting is atrocious and wooden.

It seems as if the film was made just for showing gore and forgetting the acting bit.

Basically the storyline would have been good if they had picked decent actors and actresses, bringing it as an up to date story of Frankenstein.

The blood and gore were over emphasised and didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.

This modern retelling of Mary Shelleys classic Frankenstein is brought to you by The Asylum, do I really need to continue?

Asylum is infamous for making bad movies and "Mockbusters" and here we have one of three connected movies by them where it appears they were trying to create a monster universe. First came this then Beast of Bray Road (2005) and then Dracula's Curse (2006) so we have Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolfman on display.

For some reason they have much of the same cast yet playing different characters which seems like a poor choice. Then again it's The Asylum so I shouldn't be surprised.

Again it's a very loose modern adaptation, certain elements will look familiar but ultimately it forges it's own identity and that's more than slightly a bad thing. Frankenstein Reborn ticks all the usual Asylum boxes, yet is actually a bit better than usual somehow.

The creature looks better than you'd imagine, and the plot is passable. Sadly that's where it ends, the acting is appalling, the pacing is bizarre and the whole thing just doesn't flow.

Passable for an Asylum film, still bad compared to everything else.

The Good:

The monster looks okay

The Bad:

Victor "Frank", really?

A few plot holes

Poorly constructed

Sarah Lieving is wasted

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

It's like the Asylum is making one of every movie just so they can prove they can't make anything successfully

Australian-American-Italian-Swiss Victor Frank who graduated from Harvard just didn't sit right with me

Very bad acting. This time i could not even laugh at the bad acting as it can be in other horrors sometimes , for some reason i felt sorry for the actors in this case. I also wish Rhett Giles (Victor) could speak more naturally , less drama in his nonstop half whispering voice maybe.

The characters was not interesting ,or believable in any way and i could not care less how the story will develop either . And what is it with the sound , that was really irritating. The sound is changing constantly between to quiet , so you can hardly hear it and very laud , so you can hardly manage to continue watch .

I did not.

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.

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.