Frankenstein Reborn

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.

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.

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

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

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.