Docteur Frankenstein

"You know this story. The crackling lightning. The mad genius. An unholy creation."

And so opens up the lastest interpretation of Mary Shelley's legendary novel-turned-pop culture myth. So, what does this version add to the time-tested tale? Surprisingly, a fair amount.

An amalgamation of various film versions (taking most of its cues from Universal and Hammer), this film tells the origins of Victor Frankenstein through the eyes of a nameless hunchback who, after a quick and very nasty surgery, is dubbed Igor. It tells the story of how the world around Victor reacts to his experiments, from the conniving entrepeuneur to the over-zealous man of faith trying to stop him.

And how does it all hold up? Again, surprisingly really well. The chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy sparks the film up quite a few notches while Andrew Scott, Jessica Brown Findlay and Freddie Fox all make good work of their admittedly under-developed supporting roles.

The direction by Paul McGuigan is energetic and lively, even if the pace is a tad too frenetic at times. The use of practical effects for the monstrosities that our heroes bring to life are impressive to behold and everything is boasted by a powerfully theatrical score by Craig Armstrong and some beautiful production design by Eve Stewart.

As I said, pacing is a tad too fast and certain bits of writing could've used some tweaking, but the cast and enthusiastic direction definitely make this a more than worthy entry into the Frankenstein mythos that I will gladly welcome into my collection as soon as it makes its to Blu-Ray/DVD.

I'm pleased to say that it is very much alive.

Everyone knows the story of Frankenstein, whether or not you've seen the films. A mad scientist named Victor von Frankenstein, with help from his friend Igor, manage to reanimate a corpse consisting of different parts from different bodies. A monster, if you will. From a storytelling perspective, Victor Frankenstein is as run-of-the-mill as you can get. The only unique aspect is that it's told from Igor's perspective, which isn't much different since Victor is still a large part of the story. We all know what's going to happen. Even the first line is, "You know this story," and it proceeds to tell it to us again. The only conceivable reason I can think for this movie's existence is for the performances. James McAvoy is excellent as the mad genius, and Radcliffe does a fine job as his right-hand man. Andrew Scott is always nice to see, playing another antagonistic role as the inspector assigned to Frankenstein's case. And Charles Dance makes a small cameo for some reason as Victor's disapproving father. But the bulk of the movie revolves around Victor and Igor, as you can imagine, and it's exactly what you would expect, beat by beat.

Victor Frankenstein is not a bad movie in the traditional sense. If this was the first telling of this story, it would be a perfectly serviceable standalone film. But since it's so well-known, nothing about Victor Frankenstein is memorable. It's just the same narrative with different actors playing it out. No surprises, no innovations, no purpose. Just a talented cast reenacting a renowned tale.

"Victor Frankenstein" is a weird movie using Mary Shelley's notorious and famous character. There are many versions of this adaptation of the novel to the cinema, but this one rewrites the story in a totally different situation. The result is entertaining and intriguing in the beginning but becomes boring and annoying in the end. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Victor Frankenstein"

Does that mean that it's better than others? Maybe not, but maybe you are looking for a new way of telling a story that you are familiar with. Some do not like this, others really cherish the way this movie went. And it's up to the viewer to decide what he wants from a Frankenstein movie. A theme that I'm pretty sure everyone watching has heard of at least, before watching the movie.

Since I haven't read the novel, I'm not sure if some of the "changes" are already in the book, but weren't used before in other adaptations. Both main actors are really good and convey the characters they portray. With all their flaws and downfalls, with all their dreams and hopes. Whether you agree with those or not, this is more than a decent effort and a really good movie

Greetings again from the darkness. If a filmmaker is going to mess with the classics, there are two paths of creativity from which to choose: stay true to the original, or put a new spin on it. In this case, the classics in question are the nearly 200 year old novel from Mary Shelley (1818) and the nearly 85 year old movie from James Whale (1931). The filmmakers doing the messing are director Paul McGuigan (Lucky Number Slevin) and screenwriter Max Landis (son of director John). The spin they chose was (in theory) to tell the story from the perspective of Igor, the loyal assistant to Dr. Frankenstein.

It's an interesting approach, but one that immediately presents a problem … since the title they chose was not "Igor", but rather Victor Frankenstein. The film does begin with Igor's backstory in the circus as a hunchbacked clown/amateur doctor, and the character does provide some early and late narration. The conundrum stems from the fact that pretty much everything else in the movie is centered on the mad scientist, rather than the skilled apprentice/partner.

Daniel Radcliffe plays Igor and James McAvoy plays Victor Frankenstein (not Fron-kin-steen, in a nod to Mel Brooks), and both actors seem to be doing everything possible to bring energy and enthusiasm to a movie that can't seem to decide if it's a reboot or a reimagining or simply an origin story. Radcliffe effectively uses his physicality as the circus clown who is so mistreated and misunderstood, and McAvoy is such a hyper-active mad scientist that I'm sure his fellow actors many times were inclined to advise "say it, don't spray it". McAvoy does seem to be having a grand old time playing the brilliant yet unhinged young doctor-to-be, and to his credit takes a much different approach than Colin Clive when he gets to the infamous line "It's ALIVE!" The best parts of the movie are the intricate and amazing sets, the monster himself (albeit too brief), and the expert use of classical music and film score. The circus sets are colorful and active, while Frankenstein's soap factory home/laboratory is fascinating and creative, and the final Scotland castle on a cliff is breath-taking. Pulleys, chains and cranks are everywhere … as is an incredible amount of body parts, organs and fluids.

After a very well done circus opening, we are jarred with a seemingly out of place action sequence involving a slo-motion chase and fight scene that seems to be attempting to mimic some of the recent Sherlock Holmes movie stunts. Here they are unwelcome and ruin the flow. Another aspect that seems forced and unnecessary is a romantic interlude between Igor and a trapeze artist (played by Jessica Brown Findlay). It feels like an add-on to remind us that it's supposed to be Igor's story. Additionally, Andrew Scott plays an intriguing Scotland Yard Inspector who is every bit as obsessed with his faith-based beliefs as Victor is with his science-has-no-bounds stance. A story told from the Inspector's perspective might have worked, but instead it comes across as another add-on. Another add-on is the filthy rich and very devious fellow med student (played by Freddie Fox) who agrees to fund the experiments, but mostly the character is an after-thought necessary to move the plot along. Wasted is the always menacing Charles Dance, who has but one scene as Victor's strongly disapproving daddy.

A combination of the romance, minimal role of Igor in the grand finale, the medical school bumbling, the clunky Inspector involvement, and the all too brief monster appearance makes the film all but impossible for viewers to connect. They tell us twice "You know the story … a crack of lightning, a mad genius, and an unholy creation", but the reality is, the fact that we know the story, makes this one all the more disappointing. It's fun to look at, but is lacking the depth and soul that has allowed Shelley's book to stand up over two centuries.