24 commentaires
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
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
- Platypuschow
- 9 déc. 2018
- Permalien
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.
- Scarecrow-88
- 28 oct. 2008
- Permalien
- todbrowning2000
- 10 mai 2007
- Permalien
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.
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.
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.
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.
- auxil765071470
- 29 août 2005
- Permalien
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.
- pharris-15
- 15 juil. 2006
- Permalien
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.
- redhead9898
- 5 oct. 2007
- Permalien
- norm_mahmoud
- 2 sept. 2005
- Permalien
- slayrrr666
- 9 août 2006
- Permalien
- poolandrews
- 29 oct. 2005
- Permalien
You think you've seen it, Then they re-invent Mary Shelley's Monster Wheel. I should start with the cast: RHETT GILES as Victor Franks/The Doctor, He has this Alan Rickman-Snape from Harry Potter twist. JOEL HEBNER (Need to interview) plays the reborn creature,I can't exactly say as Bernie Wrightson would draw him---But, Close. The editing was challenging to watch at first, Kind of like "Memento". A lot of scenes will make you feel all squishy for tributes- There is the Babysitter scene from first "Halloween", The interrogation moment from "Silence Of The Lambs", I loved the "Kolchak" moment the shrink had with a microphone at end. This would have been a Great Ending, Not the teaser throwaway that smacks sequel
I was expecting little from Frankenstein Reborn, considering The Asylum's reputation. But while it is far from a good movie, as far as Asylum movies go it is not that bad. The monster is actually very menacing in disturbing in look, the opening scene is gory and really promises much and Thomas Downey, Joel Hebner and especially Rhett Giles, finally in a role that gives him something worthwhile to do, are remarkably good in their roles. Sadly, what the opening scene promises is not matched with the rest of the movie. Visually, Frankenstein Reborn is very amateurish, the settings look as though they are somebody's basement, the camera work is rushed-looking and tries to do too much that you don't feel any connection with anything you see and the effects are very cheaply rendered. The music is overbearing, poorly utilised and is not fitting with the rest of the film at all. As a consequence, the scares and tension are further severely diluted. The script has very little of interest, it is very talky and a lot of it reads of aimless exposition. It is cringe-worthy in a cheesy sense also. I knew that Frankenstein Reborn was not going to be faithful to Mary Shelley's story, Asylum movie adaptations never have been, so that wasn't an issue. However, the predictable way the story is told, the many sluggish and needless scenes and the unoriginal and non-scary killings really let the side down. The gore is not so bad visuals-wise, but does little to enhance the atmosphere, which generally just wasn't there. The characters are ones I found myself indifferent to, other than the monster, Victor and Robert they are annoying. The rest of the acting is very bland and passionless. Overall, not a good movie but not a really bad one either, it promised much and does try hard but with largely disappointing results. 4/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- 31 oct. 2012
- Permalien
- The_Depressed_Star_Wars_fan
- 26 juin 2011
- Permalien
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.
- paul_m_haakonsen
- 31 mai 2024
- Permalien
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.
- Count Graf Orlok
- 3 août 2006
- Permalien
I have read other reviews on this film, and entirely disagree! OK, first things first, yes this is a low budget film, yes these are not Class A actors, however this is a well written, constructed and edited film. The director has obviously much skill in squeezing every penny out of his budget, and I believe possibly got the best performance from his cast that they are ever likely to give.
Anyone familiar with the Frankenstein story and its various adaptations should appreciate the originality and freshness of this one. Also, this film has many moments that truly return 'Frankenstein' into the horror genre, where it belongs! (Including a Monster that fits the description of MONSTER)
Basically, the director Leigh Scott, has created an above average re-invention of the Frankenstein legend, and I wish him luck with any future projects.
Anyone familiar with the Frankenstein story and its various adaptations should appreciate the originality and freshness of this one. Also, this film has many moments that truly return 'Frankenstein' into the horror genre, where it belongs! (Including a Monster that fits the description of MONSTER)
Basically, the director Leigh Scott, has created an above average re-invention of the Frankenstein legend, and I wish him luck with any future projects.
- akamatsu-1
- 17 déc. 2008
- Permalien
This is one of the scariest movies I have seen. I have no idea how any one could not like it. It is a great horror movie.
- jacobjohntaylor1
- 25 juil. 2021
- Permalien
- Freshslatepictures
- 25 sept. 2013
- Permalien
- thedavidlady
- 26 févr. 2025
- Permalien